Remaking Government in Canada: Dares, Resilience, and Civility in Westminster Systems
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
By 2015 concern had emerged about the trajectory of Canada's Westminster model and the state of democratic governance under successive Harper governments, particularly with respect to transparency and relationships with public servants, which among other things led to the election of the Trudeau government in October 2015. This article compares these developments with the wholesale reform experiences in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. We consider not only the evolving bargains between prime ministers and their ministers, political advisors, top officials, and legislatures, but also between party leaders and political parties, and between governments and civil society. Second, we characterize far‐reaching reforms as “dares,” intended to change the trajectory of Westminster systems, which carry political risks. Third, we consider the resilience of Westminster systems in the face of significant change and inaction. The Harper reforms were not nearly as dramatic as those of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia during the late 1980s but did change the bargain with civil society, foundational to Westminster systems. The essential principles of responsible government have stood up well to the test of experience, and will serve as well tomorrow as they have in the past. However, parliamentary government is an inherently evolutionary form of government. Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics ( , 17)
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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