La regulación de la competición electoral en Canadá: un modelo igualitario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El modelo canadiense de regulacion de la competicion electoral es, probablemente, uno de los mas interesantes del mundo, al colocar la preocupacion por la equidad –o la igualdad de oportunidades entre los competidores– en el centro del debate. En su primera parte, este articulo ofrece un resumen de la construccion del modelo, prestando atencion al papel que ha tenido en este proceso el dialogo entre el poder legislativo y el poder judicial. La segunda parte trata sobre los debates judiciales mas relevantes en relacion con cuestiones como los gastos de terceros, las normas sobre radiodifusion en los periodos electorales y los requisitos para el acceso a la financiacion publica, mostrando que estos debates, en realidad, trataban sobre una cuestion ideologica mas amplia: si en Canada debia prevalecer un modelo igualitario o libertario de regulacion electoral. En la parte final del articulo, podemos encontrar algunas de las cuestiones que permanecen abiertas para el debate, como el cuestionamiento de la financiacion publica a traves de la reciente reforma legislativa.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".