MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092100935 · doi:10.1080/13572330500158599

Imposing a neo-liberal theory of representation on the Westminster model: A Canadian case

2005· article· en· W2092100935 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Pond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Legislative Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureLegitimacyRepresentation (politics)Public administrationObligationParliamentDemocracyProportional representationIdeologyRestructuringGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceSociologyLawLaw and economicsPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Conservative government in office in the Canadian province of Ontario between 1995 and 2003 offers a lesson in how the Westminster model can accommodate different interpretations of the role of the elected parliamentarian. The Conservatives espoused a vision of parliamentary representation, rooted in neo-liberal ideology, which held that the primary obligation of elected members was to respect their constituents' interest as taxpayers, superseding attention to any of their other multiple identities traditionally considered to be worthy of representation in the Legislature. The legitimacy of representative democracy was compromised when governments strayed from this norm. This analysis of the purposes of representation provided the intellectual framework for an ambitious restructuring of the Westminster model, most notably an unprecedented reduction in the size of the provincial legislature, as well as the elimination of the Legislature's historic control over its own electoral boundaries and composition.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0320.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Legislative StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207