Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early in November 2002, a political tremour shook Parliament Hill — fifty-six Liberal MPs voted against the will of their leader and with the opposition parties in the House of Commons. At issue was a Canadian Alliance motion to change House rules to allow chairs of committees to be elected by secret ballot. Purple prose and fervid speculation followed: Had the unthinkable happened and the Prime Minister “lost control of his caucus”? What did the future hold now that his caucus had “tasted blood”? How much of a personal humiliation was the vote for Jean Chrétien, and was it enough of one to cut short his interminable long goodbye? Or, was it evidence that the official opposition had coalesced sufficiently after its own leadership turmoil to carry through a successful divide and conquer mission? Could more of the same strategy be expected?
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.045 | 0.013 |
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".