MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2735795055

A Debate on Reform of the Electoral System in Canada - Visions of Canada 2042

2017· article· en· W2735795055 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
William Cross, David McGrane, Stanley L. Winer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisionPoliticsDemocracyPolitical sciencePublic administrationStatus quoSociologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Debate on Reform of the Electoral System in Canada (A Special Lunchtime Event) during Visions for Canada 2042 at Carleton University. A debate on the questions of whether the current electoral system in Canada should be reformed, and if so how. This debate highlighted the advantages and shortcomings of both the status quo and alternative systems as well as consider the appropriate method for consideration and reform of the electoral system.Presenters:William Cross is Professor and Bell Chair for the Study of Canadian Parliamentary Democracy in the Department of Political Science at Carleton University. He is also serving as President of the Canadian Political Science Association. Cross is widely published and read, and has been involved in the publication of 11 books (as either co/editor or co/author) related to Canadian politics. He received the Research Achievement Award from Carleton University this year. He will act as moderator of the debate.David McGrane is an Associate Professor of Political Studies at St. Thomas More College and the University of Saskatchewan. He has published over twenty peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, and academic books, and maintains a high profile in the media as an expert on both provincial and federal politics and elections. His areas of research include federal-provincial fiscal relations, Canadian provincial politics, Canadian social democracy, and elections. He will argue for electoral reform.Stanley Winer is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Public Policy at the School of Public Policy and Administration and the Department of Economics at Carleton University. His research combines economics and politics to work towards an understanding of the structure and evolution of fiscal systems in modern democracies. He is currently pursuing research addressing the meaning, measurement, and consequences for policy of electoral competitiveness in Canada, the United States, and India. He will defend for the status quo.

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)0.015
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0280.020
Scholarly communication0.0180.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→