MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552038713 · doi:10.21991/c98d6v

Status Quo Unacceptable; Senate Reform Possible; Abolition by Stealth Anti-Democratic

2015· article· en· W1552038713 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Linda Trimble

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoDemocracySupreme courtAssertionPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Deliberative democracyConversationPublic administrationLaw and economicsLawSociologyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I will begin by challenging the federal government’s assertion that the Supreme Court decisioneffectively makes meaningful Senate reform impossible. Then, I will discuss the move towardsabolition and explain why I think it’s both reckless and anti-democratic. Finally, I’ll conclude bymaking a pitch for a truly deliberative process — a national conversation on the future of the Senate in the form of a citizen’s assembly.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.032
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207