MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972474204 · doi:10.1080/1357233042000322319

The executive and parliament in canada

2004· article· en· W1972474204 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Legislative Studies · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentLegislaturePolitical scienceCabinet (room)ScrutinyPublic administrationSeparation of powersLawLegitimacyPower (physics)Government (linguistics)DemocracyLaw and economicsSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive–legislative relations in Canada have long favoured prime ministers with strong legislative powers even by Westminster standards, although these are tempered by federalism and entrenched constitutional rights. Parliamentary parties are highly disciplined and defeats of government bills are virtually unknown. While parliamentary scrutiny of government is well established, its parameters and actual effectiveness are blurry. The appointed Senate can serve as a counterweight to executive power but it lacks sufficient legitimacy. Explanations and justifications for executive power include the need to craft delicate compromises for a diverse nation, complex leadership selection mechanisms that deter challenges of party leaders, and the historically high turnover of MPs and shortage of veteran parliamentarians, even in cabinet. The recent overthrow of Prime Minister Jean Chretien by Paul Martin shows executives are not invincible, but it remains to be seen how Martin will address what he has called a ‘democratic deficit’ in executive–legislative relations in Canada.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.290 · 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