DOME DISEASES: PARTY COMPETITION, LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY IN THREE CANADIAN PROVINCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project compares the structure and operations of the provincial legislatures of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario over approximately fifteen years to evaluate the ways in which their effectiveness at holding government accountable is enhanced or diminished by differing systems of party competition.British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario exemplify polarized two-party, single-party dominant and multi-party systems, respectively.To evaluate the effectiveness of the legislatures under study, this project focuses on three areas: the independence of each legislature and its committees from the government, the autonomy of the legislature in managing its affairs and the degree to which it can meaningfully impact public policy.Results are mixed; while party competition appears to have caused significant differences in some measures of legislative effectiveness, others are less clear.Moreover, the differences between legislatures appear to be diminishing over time.I am grateful to my committee members, David Laycock, Mark Pickup and Andy Heard, for supporting me through the process of writing and defending this project.Particular thanks are due to my senior supervisor, David Laycock, whose guidance, patience and encouragement have been seemed infinite, whether dealing with intense periods of writing or lengthy periods of procrastination and frustration.Thanks also to Shantala Singh in the Political Science department, who made the administrative side of this project as painless as possible.Graham White at the University of Toronto provided helpful advice-and warningsearly in the process when I was attempting to narrow down a research topic.The Office of the Premier in Ontario and the British Columbia Legislature Library provided assistance in obtaining some of the data used in this project.The Alberta Legislature Library and the Premier's Office in that province each referred me to the other, but their efforts are appreciated nonetheless.My interest in parliamentary democracy was cemented during my time working for two members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly.Thanks to Bruce Miller and Laurie Blakeman for showing me both what politics actually is and what politics can be.I appreciate the encouragement I received from friends, classmates
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".