MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972266157 · doi:10.21991/cf29384

The Crown and Government Formation: Conventions, Practices, Customs, and Norms

2019· article· en· W2972266157 on OpenAlex
Philippe Lagassé

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueConstitutional Forum / Forum constitutionnel · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsLawPolitical scienceConventionTransparency (behavior)Crown (dentistry)SociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Crown’s role in government formation is poorly understood in Canada. As demonstrated by the confusion surrounding the Lieutenant Governor’s duties in the aftermath of recent elections in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the functions of the Crown are misrepresented by politicians vying for power and misconstrued by commentators. These cases also suggest a degree of uncertainty about the Crown’s powers within the vice-regal office themselves. There has been a regrettable tendency to exaggerate the Crown’s involvement in government formation, which risks dragging the vice-regal representatives into the political arena or creating unrealistic expectations about the personal discretion they are able to exercise.
 Misunderstandings about the Crown’s place in government formation can be traced to three gaps in knowledge. The first is a vague comprehension of the foundational conventions of responsible government as they pertain to the Crown. While the conventions that surround the government’s need to secure and hold the confidence of the elected house of the legislature are widely recognized, the conventions that frame the relationship between a first minister and the Crown are not. Second, there is confusion about what counts as a veritable constitutional convention. Conventions are too often conflated with other types of rules, notably practices, customs, and norms. Differentiating between these concepts helps us identify which constitutional rules firmly bind the Crown and which are more fluid and evolving. Thirdly, the lack of official explanations and transparency about the Crown’s functions and constitutional activities makes it difficult to appreciate the rules that surround the institution. While some vice-regal offices have made efforts to better articulate their constitutional roles, there is a need for greater openness and explanation. 
 My aim in this article is to offer an analysis of the types of rules that surround the Crown and government formation in Canada. I begin the article with a discussion of the difference between constitutional convention, practice, custom, and norms. I then examine how the Crown’s role in government formation are guided by these four types of rules. I conclude by recommending ways that vice-regal offices can better explain their functions and avoid confusion and controversy about their powers and personal discretion.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.267 · 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