Citizens’ assemblies and policy reform in New Zealand
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
In 2011 New Zealand held a referendum on the future of its voting system for general elections. Following the referendum, the current voting system was retained, and the Electoral Commission reviewed the system and made recommendations for change in late 2012. In early 2013 the government’s response to those recommendations is still awaited. Recognising the importance of this process, this article considers an alternative approach to electoral reform, drawing on the experiences of Canada’s and Holland’s use of citizens’ assemblies in the electoral policy-making process. The article considers the merits and limitations of citizens’ assemblies for electoral reform, particularly in the New Zealand context. It proposes the form and function of a citizens’ assembly on electoral reform in New Zealand to complement the reform process. Overseas experience demonstrates that, with some caveats, a citizens’ assembly remains a possibility for electoral reform and other constitutional policy change in New Zealand in the future.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it