MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1537497923 · doi:10.21991/c9kx1x

Reforming the Upper House: Lessons from Britain

2014· article· en· W1537497923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gary Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHouse of CommonsLegitimacyCommissionHouse of RepresentativesWhite (mutation)Political scienceElectoral reformPublic administrationCommonsLawDemocracyParliamentPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For nearly two decades Britain has been engagedin some of the most ambitious constitutional andparliamentary reforms since the Reform Acts ofthe nineteenth century. Reform in the House ofLords alone has produced six White Papers, oneRoyal Commission, and dozens more parliamentaryvotes and reports by the House of Commons,the House of Lords and the joint committees.Canadians have watched these developmentswith particular interest, since many of the issuesdebated - the legitimacy of an Upper House,election versus appointment, and qualifi cationsfor membership - are similar to those discussedhere. Yet before looking at possible lessons forCanada we need to refl ect upon another question:What is the Westminster Model and whatelements of this model are refl ected in our ownsystem?

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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