Bibliographic record
Abstract
When two of the most distinguished university presses in the world publish books on the same political events in Canada, one can be sure that something somewhat out of the ordinary has occurred. The two books under review focus on essentially the same subject, save that the later book has the advantage of more evidence - three rather than one citizen assembly – and it shows. This review will focus uniquely on the two Canadian assemblies, however. The Dutch case, while interesting, tells us more about the dynamics of Dutch politics than it adds to the understanding of citizen assemblies which emerges from the Canadian evidence. The issues in question arrive at the confluence of two important discussions on the renewal of democracy in the anglosphere – the potential of deliberative democracy to complement electoral democracy and the reform of electoral systems. Let us consider them in that order.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".