Reference re Senate Reform and the Supreme Court of Canada's Clarification of the Constitutional Procedure for Reforming the Canadian Parliament's Upper House
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIS article provides a comprehensive overview of the contested political topic of reform of the Canadian Senate.It begins by providing brief outlines on the Senate as an institution and the history of Senate reform, including the recent history of reform under the Harper Government and in the aftermath of the Canadian Senate Expenses Scandal.It goes on to examine the Supreme Court of Canada's April 2014 decision in Reference re Senate Reform, which was the Court's first in-depth analysis of the post-1982 constitutional amendment process and the correct way several commonly proposed reforms to the Senate could be implemented.The article then highlights the positions of the three major Canadian political parties on Senate reform following Reference re Senate Reform before concluding.I.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.050 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".