MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2922175807 · doi:10.7202/1057017ar

La réforme du Sénat : une nécessité dans la perspective d’une véritable Confédération Canada-Québec

2019· article· fr· W2922175807 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Philip Resnick

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue générale de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans ce court texte, l’auteur montre les origines de la demande d’une réforme du Sénat dans l’ouest canadien. Il essaie ensuite de donner trois arguments en faveur d’un Sénat élu : a) renforcer la légitimité de nos institutions centrales; b) jouer un rôle de regard en ce qui touche une éventuelle charte sociale; c) maintenir l’unité du Canada anglais advenant un arrangement confédéral entre le Québec et le reste du Canada. Il conclut, enfin, qu’un Sénat élu sera un moyen d’arriver à une démocratie plus participative et cohérente au Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.866
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue générale de droit→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→