Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the opening speaker at the Centre for Constitutional Studies’ March 2015 conference entitled “Time for Boldness on Senate Reform,” I took it as my mission not to advance any bold ideas of my own (though some found my comments on Senate numbers particularly bold). Rather, I tried to set the context for other participants’ bold ideas. This paper follows a format similar to my talk. In the first part, I explain the current state of scholarly knowledge of second chambers and bicameralism. In the second part, I discuss the accepted orthodoxy that exists in Canada concerning Senate reform, namely that it must simultaneously address the method of selection, the numbers of seats each province gets, and the powers of the Senate. In the third part, I discuss the real constraint on Senate reform which is sociological and not constitutional. I left it to my fellow panelists to explore the Supreme Court ruling in the reference on Senate reform.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".