Bibliographic record
Abstract
The elections of 5 May 2010 delivered to the United Kingdom a hung Parliament, where no party controls the absolute majority of seats. The article examines the process that was followed to form the Government, leading to a coalition Government by the conservative and lib-dem. After a diachronic comparison with the other coalition Governments that the UK has experienced over the course of the 20th century, the author analyses the contents of the political reform inaugurated by the current Government and which could shape the British system of government: the (failure of the) referendum on the first-past-the-post electoral system, the approval of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 - which fixes the term of Parliament and deprives the Prime Minister of the power to dissolve the House - and the changes to the standing order of Parliament in the field of planning and control commissions. The analysis confirms the preeminent role played by the Government in the British parliamentary system but also highlights several elements which point toward a reduction of the hyper-majoritarian tendencies of that form of government, analogous to those occurring in other Westminster systems (Canada, Australia and New Zealand).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".