The unaccountable Federal Accountability Act: Goodbye to responsible government?
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
The article argues that the Federal Accountability Act or, as of November, 2006, C-2, is an unaccountable piece of legislation in the sense that it is not explicable or intelligible. Second, to take the risk of imposing so many unrelated measures on federal institutions at one time is not a responsible action. There is an unevaluated risk of destabilizing the institutions of government and the public service. Certainly some provisions of the bill, such as the creation of a parliamentary budget office as an executive agency, and the creation of a federal director of public prosecutions, might well merit study as selfstanding measures. But most other provisions, on examination, threaten to destabilize or end responsible government in Canada. The paper argues that several measures clearly fall into this latter category. Among these are measures to provide for heavy regulation and summary punishment of both parliamentarians and senior public servants, as well as for the “naming and blaming and shaming” of senior public servants at the cost of introducing a policy-administration dichotomy, plus the excessive grants of powers to agents or officers of Parliament and the creation of new “parliamentary” bureaucracies that in fact perform executive functions. The manner of passing the bill in the House was also of doubtful fairness, given that the New Democratic Party joined in a partnership with the government to rush the bill through the Legislative Committee of the House of Commons.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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