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
Introduction: according to the lobbying legislation in Canada, lobbying activity describes as a legitimate way to influence on the decision making process. The article contains analysis of lobbying regulation at the Federal and the provincial levels of Canada. Also it includes the Codes of conduct for lobbyists. Purpose: author sticks to the point that lobbying legislation in this country forms one of the most effective modern models of legal regulation of lobbying. Results: the canadian legislators explain lobbying as a legal part of the political democratic process. Author turns to details of their regulations, definitions of lobbying, public office-holders, lobbyists, describes penalties, circumstances and rules of registration. There are two types of lobbyists in Canada lobbyists-consultants and corporate lobbyists. Author describes the procedure of registration for all types of lobbyists and provides updated statistics of registered lobbyists. Analyzes amendments to the federal lobbying act helped clean up loopholes in regulation. This article provides penalties for illegal or improper lobbying. Conclusions: the Canadian model of legal regulation of lobbying refers to medium-regulated. It describes effectiveness of the Canadian system and possibility to use some of the features to create system of legal regulation of lobbying in Russia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.039 |
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