MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135872873

Approach to Gun Control Issue in Canada Under Stephen Harper's Governance (2006-2015)

2018· dissertation· cs· W7135872873 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jan Sochor

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languagecs
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentGun controlArgument (complex analysis)Corporate governanceBachelorControl (management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Repository (National Repository of Grey Literature)Same topicGun Ownership and Violence ResearchFrench-language works237,207