Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Lors de chacune des elections generales federales ou quebecoises ayant mene a la formation de gouvernements minoritaires dans la derniere decennie, les medias se sont fait concurrence pour annoncer en primeur qui allait former le prochain gouvernement, et ce, avant meme que quelque chef de parti se soit exprime de quelque facon que ce soit sur les resultats des elections. Les medias ont pris la tres fâcheuse habitude de remplacer l'ensemble du corpus de regles et principes constitutionnels applicables a la formation du gouvernement par l’application de la maxime simpliste suivante: le parti politique ayant fait elire le plus grand nombre de deputes a gagne les elections et a droit de former le prochain gouvernement. Ils presentent la chose comme s’il s’agissait d’un automatisme, une simple question d’arithmetique. Or, si cette heuristique ne cause pas de difficultes particulieres lorsquun parti politique fait elire une majorite de sieges, elle est tout a fait inadequate pour decrire le droit et les conventions applicables en matiere de formation de gouvernement dans notre systeme parlementaire. Cette heuristique est des plus problematiques lorsqu’aucun parti n’obtient une majorite de sieges lors d’elections generales. En realite, comme la pratique parlementaire nous le demontre, lorsqu’aucun parti n’obtient une majorite de sieges, il n’est pas possible de determiner qui formera le prochain gouvernement en nous fiant uniquement au nombre de sieges que l'un ou l'autre des partis a pu remporter. C’est que les principes de base sont a l’effet que (a) le premier ministre sortant a le droit d’etre le premier a tenter d’obtenir la confiance de l’assemblee legislative au retour des elections generales, (b) et il est du devoir du gouverneur general (ou du lieutenant-gouverneur) de nommer le chef de(s) parti(s) le(s) plus susceptible(s) de jouir de la confiance de la chambre elue au poste de premier ministre. Une meconnaissance populaire de l’ensemble des regles et principes applicables risque d’engendrer une importante crise de confiance dans nos institutions democratiques. Cela est d’autant plus vrai si les acteurs politiques agissent conformement aux normes applicables, tout en allant a l’encontre de celles, erronees, publicisees par les medias. Cet article vise donc a expliciter les regles et principes constitutionnels canadiens applicables a la formation du gouvernement et a illustrer les differentes considerations constitutionnelles devant entrer en ligne de compte en fonction des divers cas de figure possibles. Un aide-memoire est produit en annexe du texte de maniere a faciliter la consultation de ces regles et principes applicables a ces diverses situations. English Abstract: During the last decade, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, the medias have competed against one another to be the first to declare, on elections night, who would form the next government. Irrespective of whether they predicted that any political party would be able to obtain a majority of seats, they made their announcements within a few hours of the closing of the polls. In fact, their announcements systematically preceded any public statement by the leaders of the political parties involved. Indeed, medias developed the unfortunate habit of substituting the entire set of constitutional rules and principles leading to the formation of government by a simplistic heuristic: “the political party that has won the largest number of seats has won the elections and has the right to form the next government.” They present the issue as automatic, merely a matter of arithmetic. If this heuristic works well when a party has won a majority of seats, it is completely inadequate as a statement of the constitutional law and conventions related to the formation of government in our parliamentary system. This heuristic is most problematic when no party has won a majority of seats. In fact, as parliamentary practices demonstrate, knowledge of the number of seats that a party has won is not, in itself, sufficient to determine who will form the next government. Indeed, the fundamental principles of government formation are that (a) the incumbent Prime Minister (or Premier) has the right to be the first to seek the confidence of the newly elected legislative assembly, and (b) the Governor General (or Lieutenant Governor) has the duty to appoint the leader of the political party (or parties) most susceptible of commanding the confidence of the elected assembly to the position of Prime Minister (or Premier). Popular misunderstandings of the rules and principles leading to the formation of government may lead to a crisis of confidence in our democratic institutions. This is even more so if political actors adequately follow the proper constitutional rules, but act contrary to the erroneously stated rules by the media. This article thus aims at fleshing out the Canadian constitutional rules and principles applicable to government formation and at illustrating how constitutional considerations come into play in the variety of possible scenarios. A quick reference tool is appended to the text to facilitate consultations of the applicable rules and principles to those different fact situations.
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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".