MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510737658 · doi:10.1111/capa.12112

Minister's Caucus Advisory Committees under the Harper government

2015· article· en· W1510737658 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaucusCabinet (room)Public administrationPrime ministerPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2010 Prime Minister Stephen Harper quietly created a system of Minister's Caucus Advisory Committees (MCACs), requiring ministers to consult with their backbench colleagues before taking policy proposals to cabinet. Based on interviews with Conservative MPs, ministers, political staffers and public servants, the paper argues that MCACs increase MPs' influence over government policy and enhance cohesion within the government's parliamentary caucus. By constraining ministers' policy freedom and providing the prime minister with regular political intelligence concerning policy proposals, MCACs reinforce his pre‐eminence within cabinet and represent a significant innovation in the relationship between the executive and government caucus.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and USFrench-language works237,207