Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following text will first characterize the sponsorship scandal and then review the consequences for the shape of the inquiry created by its terms of reference. My view is that although the intent of establishing the inquiry was to demonstrate that all was well in an open democracy, the event itself, pulled out of the past, selectively refreshed grievance and outrage. The televized proceedings followed by daily headlines so inflamed the general public with the repetitive detailing of money losses that the public came to understand sponsorship’s root evil as only financial waste, and only Liberal Party corruption (« entitlement »). The inquiry as it was conducted thus forestalled more significant conversations that might have filled in between the criminal and civil trials. Worse, the inquiry created a view that the political corruption it emphasized, which it was at pains to emphasize as « artisan, » could have been almost casually forestalled at any point by ordinary levels of vigilance on the part of senior public servants. More specifically, the terms of reference either forced or normalized a selective approach to calling, questioning and recalling witnesses. Further, the judge the government of Prime Minister Paul Martin chose to lead the inquiry was the first to acknowledge that he lacked an understanding of responsible government, political institutions and public law. He therefore was swiftly provided with advisers on the political system and settled views he was in no position to know of or judge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".