Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolMeme dans les annees 1880, on se moquait du Senat canadien disant que c’etait « un fonds de corruption aux mains du gouvernement et l’enclos du vieux bucheur du parti ». Des manifestions d’interet pour l’institution qui ne soient pas teintees de derision ou de dedain demeurent rares; il n’y a pas de veritable enthousiasme. Et pourtant, si seulement c’etait fait de maniere sensible, au moyen de l’application constante d’un principe realiste, clair et valide historiquement, la reforme du Senat pourrait s’averer la meilleure strategie pour revitaliser le systeme politique du Canada et renforcer les liens qui unissent le pays. Au lieu de se resigner a l’apathie, a la denegation et au desespoir ou encore de rever de demolition ou de se fier a des remedes survendus qui ignorent le contexte institutionnel et les traditions, il nous est possible de trouver le materiel necessaire a une digne transformation de la Chambre haute dans ses propres principes fondateurs EnglishEven in the 1880s, the Canadian Senate was mocked as “a bribery fund in the hands of the government, and paddock for the old wheel horse of the party.” Expressions of genuine interest in the institution that are not laced with derision or disdain remain rare; real enthusiasm there is none. Yet, if only it were done sensitively, by the consistent application of a clear, realistic, and historically validated principle, reform of the Senate might prove the best strategy for revitalizing Canada’s political system and for strengthening the ties that hold the country together. Rather thanrendering to apathy, denial, and despair, or else dreaming of demolition or trusting oversold remedies that ignore all institutional context and tradition, we can find most of the materials for a stately renovation of the Red Chamber in its own founding principles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".