MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1529910245

Parliamentary Review of Estimates: Initiatives and Prospects

2006· article· en· W1529910245 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jack Stilborn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian parliamentary review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentUnanimityOrder (exchange)Political scienceGovernment (linguistics)Public administrationLawEconomicsPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There appears to be a strong consensus, if not unanimity, among parliamentarians and parliamentary observers about the need for Parliament and its committees to become more effective in reviewing government spending. Few recent commentators on Parliament have failed to express this view. A great deal less has been said about specifically what parliamentary committees and individual parliamentarians need to do in order to become more effective. This article reviews initiatives recently taken by parliamentary committees and the Library of Parliament in order to strengthen effectiveness, and the emerging vision they reflect. It also outlines prospective initiatives that promise to reinforce progress, as well as challenges that remain to be addressed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian parliamentary reviewSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207