Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".