MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108218549 · doi:10.21991/c9nq37

A Time for Boldness? Exploring the Space for Senate Reform

2015· article· en· W2108218549 on OpenAlex
Michael Burton, Steve Patten

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentLegislatureRepresentation (politics)DemocracyPublic administrationPolitical scienceRedistrictingCognitive reframingFoundation (evidence)Work (physics)LawSpace (punctuation)PoliticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It was thirty years ago this past March that Alberta’s Select Special Committee on Upper HouseReform released its influential 1985 report that helped to reframe discussions on Senate reformand popularize proposals for a “Triple-E” Senate. The Committee’s report built on the work ofa Canada West Foundation task force that argued eff ective regional representation in Parliament requires a Senate that is equal (in terms of provincial representation), elected, and effective (in terms of its legislative powers). The Alberta Committee’s Report popularized these ideas and helped to frame the Senate reform debate in terms of commitments to electoral democracy and rebalancing federalism, especially in terms of the representation of territorial interests at the federal level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.232 · 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