MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W10263817 · doi:10.21991/c9mh3v

Can a Middle Ground be Found on Senate Numbers?

2011· article· en· W10263817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruce M. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllotmentProportional representationHouse of CommonsRepresentation (politics)Political scienceElectoral systemLawPublic administrationEconomicsDemocracyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seven years after Confederation, the House of Commons gave unanimous consent to a mo- tion to consider reforms to the Senate.1 The proposal included such radical notions as the adoption of a Senate electoral system based on proportional representation, the allotment of six senators for each region, and the fixing of terms to eight years, staggered to ensure the election of only half the Senate at a time.2

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0170.052
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1070.026

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207