Les livres blancs sur la politique étrangère et le rôle du Parlement du Canada Un paradoxe qui n’est cependant pas sans potentiel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le rôle parfois méconnu du Parlement du Canada relativement aux livres blancs sur la politique étrangère paraît souvent paradoxal du fait de l’écart entre la théorie et la pratique s’agissant de la suprématie du Parlement. Il reste que l’apport du Parlement à l’examen de la politique étrangère mérite qu’on s’y attarde, tout comme sa contribution potentielle au renforcement de la démocratie. Dans cet article, on passe en revue le sujet, de l’époque du gouvernement Trudeau à l’Énoncé de politique internationale du gouvernement Martin, en soulignant les faiblesses et limites qui persistent et en montrant comment les comités permanents du Parlement ont procédé à leurs propres études sans attendre ces examens. Un gouvernement minoritaire confère peut-être un plus grand poids à ce type d’examen parlementaire, mais il reste encore à concevoir un mécanisme d’examen public meilleur et plus efficace.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.000 |
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.
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".