Just What is a Vote of Confidence? The Curious Case of May 10, 2005
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
Abstract. Despite the confidence convention's central part in Canadian parliamentary government, little attention has been paid to what exactly constitutes a vote of confidence. This uncertainty was highlighted in May 2005, when the opposition parties in the House of Commons passed a motion which they claimed was a confidence motion but the government did not. This paper examines the episode, and the motion at the heart of the controversy, to determine whether it should have been considered a confidence vote. Historical precedents from 1926 to 2005 provide the context for the analysis and conclusions about what signifies a test of confidence. Résumé. Malgré le rôle central de la convention de confiance dans le système parlementaire canadien, peu d'attention a été accordée à définir ce que constitue exactement un vote de confiance. Cette imprécision a été mise en évidence en mai 2005 lors du vote officiel sur une motion contre le gouvernement, lorsqu'il y a eu désaccord sur ce qui représentait une “ défaite ” du gouvernement dans la législature. Cet article examine les événements autour de cette motion, afin de déterminer si cette dernière a réellement constitué un vote de confiance. Quelques conclusions concernant ce que signifie un test de confiance sont tirées à partir d'une analyse des précédents historiques de 1926 à 2005.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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