Parliamentary Opposition in Westminster Democracies: Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on an actor-centred institutionalist approach, parliamentary oppositions in Westminster democracies are analysed through three dimensions. Firstly, through institutional opportunity structures for opposition parties: in all four countries there are comparatively few opportunities for the opposition to affect policy-making. However, there are variances between the four countries and they change over time. Secondly, they are analysed through the parties' policy positions and the potential for cohesive behaviour by non-governmental parties. Within this aspect, there are different constellations. In most cases, opposition parties do not coordinate their strategies. Thirdly, they are viewed through bicameralism and federalism, as external veto points that may be employed by opposition parties in Australia and in Canada. Therefore, there is not only one pattern of parliamentary opposition in Westminster democracies, rather, a considerable diversity.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 it