MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1958936762 · doi:10.21991/c98374

The Constitutionality of Prorogation

2011· article· en· W1958936762 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Eric M. Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionalityParliamentPrime ministerContext (archaeology)Political scienceMeaning (existential)LawGovernorConstitutional lawOriginal meaningLaw and economicsConstitutionSociologyPoliticsPhilosophyHistoryEngineeringEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At 10:20 a.m. on 4 December 2008 — some forty minutes after Prime Minister Stephen Harper entered Rideau Hall to request that the Governor General, Michaëlle Jean, prorogue Canada’s fortieth Parliament — the media re- ported an exciting development: the front doors opened. Reporters began to speculate that the meeting had been decisive, and an anxious na- tion awaited the Prime Minister’s appearance to announce the Governor General’s decision. But then, other than the descent of a few er- rant snowflakes, nothing happened. “It’s been 6 minutes since you reported the front door opened — what’s going on over there?” a des- perate commentator pleaded on the National Post’s live blog.2 For over thirty minutes the doors remained curiously ajar, and then — at 11:01 a.m. — they closed. When the Prime Minister finally did emerge nearly an hour after that, having spent a total of two and a half hours inside Rideau Hall, he informed Canadians that the Governor General had agreed to follow his advice and prorogue (or suspend) Parliament until 26 January 2009.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.041
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.235 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnelSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207