MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331784301 · doi:10.1093/pa/gst017

Television in the Legislature: The Impact of Cameras in the House of Commons

2013· article· en· W2331784301 on OpenAlex
Stuart Soroka, О. Yu. Redko, Quinn M. Albaugh

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueParliamentary Affairs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHebrew University of Jerusalem
KeywordsHouse of CommonsLegislatureCommonsPolitical scienceMedia studiesSociologyLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of television cameras in legislatures met, in many countries, with serious debate about the potential benefits and costs of broadcasting legislative debate. There were concerns about tendency for cameras to produce less focused, more attention-seeking behaviour amongst party members, and especially leaders. This work draws together the literatures on televising debates, and on personalisation, to explore the impact of introduction of cameras in the Canadian House of Commons. Analyses are based on content analytic database of over 11,000 questions asked from 1957 to 2004; they suggest no discernible impact of cameras on House debates. These results are discussed as they pertain to both the current literature on personalisation, and the design of legislative institutions and communication policies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.309 · 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