MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The past, present and future of officers of Parliament

2003· article· en· W2048104984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul G. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Policy and Administration Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentPolitical scienceAccountabilityHumanitiesLegislatorLawPublic administrationPoliticsPhilosophyLegislation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Officers of Parliament were a little noticed feature of Canada's cabinet parliamentary system until the privacy commissioner was forced to resign in June 2003. This article analyses the past, present and future of these institutions, which were created to assist Parliament in holding responsible ministers and the bureaucracy accountable and to protect certain rights of individual Canadians. The fundamental issue is how to balance these offices' independence from both the executive and Parliament with an appropriate measure of accountability for their performance. The article examines five structural features that determine the nature of these interactions and suggests that there needs to be greater clarity in these relationships. The primary relationship in terms of responsibility and accountability of officers of Parliament should be with Parliament. Reforms are recommended to recognize and to reinforce the primacy of that relationship. Sommaire: Les hauts functionaries nommés par le Parlement n'avaient pas une grade attention au sein du système parlementaire du Canada jusqu à ce que le Commissaries à la protection de la vie privée ait été contraint de démissionner en juin 2003. Le présent article analyze le passé, le présent et l'avenir de ces institutions. La function de haut functionaries du Parlement a été créée pour aider ce demier à tenir les ministers et les bureaucrats imputable et afin de protéager certains droits des citoyens canadiens. La question fondamentale est de savoir comment trouver milieu entre l'indépendance de tels hauts fonctionnaires à l'égard du pouvoir executive et du Parliament et l'obligation de repondre corredement de leur performance. L'article examine cinq éléments structure qui déterminent la nature de ces interactions et conclut que ces relations doivent cmieux definies. En termes de responsabilité et d'imputabilité, les hauts functionaries devraient avant tout relever du Parliament. Des réformes sont recommand ées bur reconnaître et renforcer la suprématie de cette relation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicPublic Policy and Administration ResearchFrench-language works237,207