Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to analyze the practical difficulties that arise from the term consultative referendum’s traditional definition. Based on a consensus among some legal doctrine and the institutional practices of countries that hold referendums deemed «consultative» - such as Canada, the Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom - we shall demonstrate that the results of a consultative referendum bind officials and that the very rare exceptions to this principle are justified by elements that, ultimately, do not pertain to the consultative or decisive nature of a referendum vote. It is imperative to redefine the notion of a consultative referendum so as to distinguish between a consultative and decisive referendum in order to avoid any confusion between the notions of «a binding or non-binding effect on Parliament» and «Parliament’s role in implementing the results». It then becomes necessary to differentiate how officials will take action according to the results of the referendum vote, which characterizes the traditional definition of a consultative referendum, from what constitutes the essence of this type of referendum vote, in other words that it is non-self-executing. Finally, in order to go beyond the binary and reductive characteristics of the typology consultative or decisive referendum, it would also be useful to view these two types of referendums as both extremities of a continuum where a third category, called orientation referendum, would fall in the middle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".