Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Joint cabinet meetings are increasingly used for inter-governmental dialogue, at both international and sub-state levels. Provincial governments in western Canada, in particular, have employed the joint cabinet meeting format, and, between 2003 and 2009, nine such joint cabinet meetings were held. The resulting inter-provincial collaboration at these meetings produced over thirty inter-provincial agreements. Using the details of these particular joint cabinet meetings as a case study, this article considers three questions: First, why do governments hold joint cabinet meetings? Second, are joint cabinet meetings effective mechanisms for inter-governmental policy-making? And, third, particular to the Canadian context, what are the implications of joint cabinet meetings for federalism and democracy? The author argues that joint cabinet meetings are designed to build relationships and trust between governments and to allow a “whole-of-government” approach for inter-governmental policy-making. The joint cabinet meeting model appears to facilitate expedient inter-governmental policy-making, but the effectiveness of the resulting policies depends on the political will of the participating governments. Furthermore, in the Canadian context, joint cabinet meetings have the potential of reinforcing regionalism and the undemocratic tendencies associated with executive federalism. Sommaire : Les gouvernements ont de plus en plus recours aux réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres pour entretenir un dialogue à tous les paliers gouvernementaux. Les gouvernements provinciaux dans l'ouest du Canada ont, en particulier, utilisé le format de réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres et, de 2003 à 2009, neuf réunions de ce genre se sont déroulées. La collaboration interprovinciale qui a découlé de ces réunions a donné lieu à plus de trente accords interprovinciaux. Se servant des détails de ces réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres comme étude de cas, le présent article aborde trois questions: premièrement, pourquoi les gouvernements tiennent-ils des réunions conjointes de conseils des ministres? Deuxièmement, les réunions conjointes de conseils des ministres sont-elles des mécanismes efficaces pour l'élaboration de politiques intergouvernementales? Et troisièmement, en ce qui concerne le contexte canadien en particulier, quelles sont les implications de telles réunions conjointes pour le fédéralisme et la démocratie? L'auteur fait valoir que les réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres sont conçues pour renforcer les relations et la confiance entre les gouvernements et pour permettre une approche « pangouvernementale » pour l'élaboration de politiques intergouvernementales. Le modèle des réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres semble encourager l'élaboration opportune de politiques intergouvernementales, mais l'efficacité des politiques qui en découlent dépend de la volonté politique des gouvernements participants. En outre, dans le contexte canadien, les réunions conjointes des conseils des ministres pourraient renforcer le régionalisme et les tendances non démocratiques associées au fédéralisme exécutif.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".