A Question of Balance: The Cult of Research Intensivity and the Professing of Political Science in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
underline the main preoccupations of the discipline as it evolves through history. ” My predecessors have indeed done this, in the process leaving us with a rich legacy of original reflections on politics and political sci-ence in this country—reflections that continue to wear well despite the passage of time. I seek to do something a little more derivative: to revisit a presidential address given nearly a decade ago on an important issue that in my view should preoccupy those of us who profess political sci-ence in Canada in the early twenty-first century. In 1998, Tom Pocklington’s address focused on “The Place of Polit-ical Science in Canadian Universities. ” At issue is Pocklington’s conten-tion that “the main tasks of political scientists are first-rate teaching and reflective enquiry about citizenship;... in the past few years we have been moving away from this understanding, and remedial action is required. Our Acknowledgments: My thanks to my colleagues at McMaster University in the mid-
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".