MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2571465661

Saskatchewan Teachers Observe Parliamentary Process in Action

2016· article· en· W2571465661 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eric Neudorf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian parliamentary review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCaucusParliamentDemocracyPolitical scienceAction (physics)GovernorPoliticsPublic administrationPublic relationsSociologyLawEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Now in its 18th year, the Saskatchewan Teachers’ Institute on Parliamentary Democracy has given nearly three hundred teachers from across province the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the political system by observing it in action. Through meetings with the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker, Ministers, Caucus leaders, Whips, and Chairs, as well as with Private Members, media and the judiciary, the non-partisan professional development program provides teachers with an all-encompassing overview of the realities of democracy and its importance in our society, thereby equipping them with valuable knowledge to convey the issues and intricacies of modern Parliament to their students. The Institute also promotes the sharing of ideas, resources and methodologies for teaching about parliamentary democracy with fellow participants. In this article, the author recounts his experience as a teacher-intraining who participated in a recent edition of the program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian parliamentary review→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→