MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972608100 · doi:10.15804/ppk.2014.02.04

Status prawny i finansowanie partii politycznych w Kanadzie

2014· article· pl· W2972608100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marek Chmaj

Bibliographic record

VenuePrzegląd Prawa Konstytucyjnego · 2014
Typearticle
Languagepl
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada, as an Anglo-Saxon law system arose, with influences of the American legislation, it has not regulated the status of political parties on the constitutional level. Basis of the existence of political parties in Canada, is the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. Rules for the registration and financing of political parties in Canada was systematized in the second half of the 20th century. Currently, the activity of political parties shall be governed by the Canada Elections Act of 2004 and Financial Administration. As a general rule, political parties in Canada should be divided into registered and unregistered. In addition to a number of other rights, registered parties are entitled to special conditions of the financing of their activities. Canadian financing of political parties is the subject of discussion since the 1960s and is based on three pillars: donations from private individuals, funding from the state budget (CA. 2 Canadian dollars for each vote) and reimbursement of election campaign expenses (50% in the case of an overrun of the threshold of 2% of the vote on a national scale). It should be noted that supervision of the activities of political parties in Canada have the Chief Electoral Officer and Chairman of the Central Election Commission.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.234 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePrzegląd Prawa KonstytucyjnegoSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207