Information and Institutions: The Relationship Between the Executive and Legislature in Botswana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers who study legislatures contend that groups rather than institutions shape policy. This argument forms from perceptions that institutions are unimportant because power has been transferred away from Parliament toward policy communities of actors. Accordingly, it is thought that the institutional framework bears no significance because formal institutions for scrutinising decisions do not have a great impact on policy outputs and outcomes. The thesis of this paper is that differences in access and quality of information accords the Executive an advantage on policy formulation and analysis, a factor that is meagrely extended to constituency representatives. The paper examines information availability and its significance among parliamentary stakeholders, particularly MPs. It is through this analysis that a critique of the status quo will be provided. The paper is directed by the assumption that access to quality information equips the decision maker with informed alternatives pertaining to a particular subject. Constituency representatives in Botswana lacks an elaborate information system. By contrast the Ministers have an army of information providers (bureaucrats) and hence their decisions are unlikely to be challenged by constituency representatives. The results presented here are part of an on going study and should therefore be accepted with great caution.
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 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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".