MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2129814822 · doi:10.1017/s0008423905210107

Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers and Parliament

2005· article· en· W2129814822 on OpenAlexaffabout
Barbara Wake Carroll

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and Federalism
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentCabinet (room)Public administrationPolitical scienceAccountabilityPoliticsGovernment (linguistics)ServantLegislatureLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breaking the Bargain: Public Servants, Ministers and Parliament, Donald J. Savoie, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003, pp. xiv, 337 Most of us have been taught, and have taught, about the traditional relationship between public servants, ministers and parliaments under the Westminster tradition of government. Ideas like the accountability of the neutral, non-partisan, anonymous senior public servant to his minister, and concepts like ministerial responsibility and collective cabinet responsibility to Parliament, and the oversight and legislative role of Parliament, are part of what Donald Savoie calls the traditional bargain that underpins the political and administrative process in Canada. The central thesis of this book is that this traditional bargain has been broken and a new bargain needs to be struck if our system of responsible government is going to continue to function effectively.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.019
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicCommonwealth, Australian Politics and FederalismFrench-language works237,207