Bibliographic record
Abstract
work that is similar in many respects to that of the United States. 9 Both countries are predominately English-speaking, common law jurisdictions, and both include one internal unit whose citizens upon joining the federation were Frenchspeaking and whose legal system was civil law. 10 This makes both countries a mixed jurisdiction as that term is understood in comparative law. 11However, the roles of the French language and the civil law in Canada are very different from their role in the United States.In Canada, Francophone civilists have a significant presence in the country's national institutions. 12Québec elects seventyfive of three hundred and one members of Parliament, 13 and the last three long-serving Prime Ministers of Canada have been Québec lawyers. 14 Francophone civilists are also well represented in the federal civil service, which is responsible for developing legislative proposals and drafting the legislative texts that are submitted to Parliament for enactment. 15 Finally, the 9.For example, both are federations established by agreement of former British colonies in which legislative authority is exercised by a central legislature and the legislative assemblies of the constituents; both are electoral democracies; both are founded on British notions parliamentary sovereignty and rule of law; both rely on superior courts to enforce constitutional principles through judicial review.See
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".