Approach to Gun Control Issue in Canada Under Stephen Harper's Governance (2006-2015)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This bachelor thesis deals with the change of argument in the debate of gun control issue in Canada during Stephen Harper's governance. Gun control approach in Canada went through significant changes throughout the history. Until 1990s gun laws were mostly responsive to the events of the 20th century. The change of gun control approach occured during Harper's conservative governance. Since then, the safety issue of the gun control approach has started to be less prominent at the expense of the financial issue. That is due to strict gun laws which brought considerable financial expenses. The method of content analysis which was used in this thesis utilizes particular speeches of Members of Canadian Parliament when taking into consideration other primary sources such as official statistics and laws. The first part of the thesis deals with the approach towards firearms since 1867 until Stephen Harper's governance in 2006. This chapter also points out the reactivity and safety reasons why those particular laws were adopted. The second chapter compares selected speeches of Members of Parliament in order to prove the fundamental research question of this thesis, which is: Has the financial argument replaced safety argument presented by Conservative party during the reported period? The bachelor thesis...
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".