The Elusive Nature of National Party Organization in Canada and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A federal form of government presumes the existence of two forums for electoral competition— provincial/state and national. Much of the literature on parties in federations has been concerned with the nature and extent of partisan differences between national and provincial representation, and their significance for the operation of the federal system (for example, Riker 1964; Smiley 1987, 101-124; Thorlakson 2005). To use Smiley’s terminology, the question can be framed in terms of the extent to which parties are integrated — the same partisan loyalties are in play at both provincial and national elections—or confederal, characterised by differing patterns of partisan competition for representation in provincial and national legislatures (Smiley 1987, 103-104). Although some studies mention party organization as an important component in assessing the degree of partisan integration (Smiley 1987; and note Riker 1964, 131-134), there has been little systematic examination of the nature of national parties in federations. It has been assumed that if the same parties—particularly if they are disciplined mass parties—contest both provincial and national elections and gain similar vote shares in both forums, national and provincial parties will be joined in a single hierarchy. Provincial components will be closely linked, and subordinate, to the national branch of each party, a situation congruent with a strongly centralized federal system (Thorlakson 2005). Conversely, if the pattern of partisan competition differs
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".