Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I will argue that the Canadian Parliamentary system has become significantly less democratic over time and therefore requires reform. Specifically, I will focus on the Senate and the ways in which the institution has had a negative impact on the state of Canadian democracy. Through an analysis of how Senators are selected, the make up of the Senate, and the institution’s role in Canadian governance, I come to the conclusion that Canadians must demand reform if they are to maintain a strong, healthy democracy that serves their interests. Mainly, I support a Triple E Senatorial system since it gets at the root of the problem by decentralizing federal power and giving it to the provinces and Canadian people. I also include a brief discussion of Justin Trudeau’s plan for the Senate which proposes more immediate reform and does not require constitutional revision. Rather than demanding abolition or tolerating the status quo, taking these steps towards reform will ensure that Canadian interests are the government’s top priority. Through reform, Canadians would have more effective “sober second thought” and a democracy that works for the people, not the party in power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".