MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809802560 · doi:10.1111/capa.12272

Third party political participation and anti‐collusion rules

2018· article· en· W2809802560 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollusionPoliticsFederal electionContext (archaeology)CommissionPolitical scienceThird partyLaw and economicsPublic administrationHouse of RepresentativesGeneral electionLawEconomicsInternet privacyMicroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the enduring questions regarding third parties is how to prevent collusion between them and political parties. Collusion raises the spectre of third parties being used as vehicles to evade the spending and contribution limits imposed on political parties. I will argue in this article that federal election laws are inadequate at deterring collusion. The episode involving the “HarperPAC” and similar groups around the 2015 election helped to shine a spotlight on the vulnerabilities of the Canada Elections Act . I argue that the model deployed by the U.S. Federal Election Commission to regulate independent expenditures represents a promising path for reform if carefully adapted to the Canadian context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.761

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207