Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen a rise in concern over excessive power of the Canadian Prime Minister Office. One area of note is the potential to abuse the prerogative power to advise the dissolution, prorogation, or summoning of parliament. This paper will review and evaluate two solutions – fixed election dates and codified conventions – before proposing and defending an alternative solution, namely strengthening the Crown’s right to refuse advice of First Ministers. This solution will be presented via Eugene Forsey’s Classic Theory of Parliamentary Government, which conceives of the Governor General as the guardian of parliament against the forces of centralization motivating the PM and cabinet. Such a conception, I will demonstrate, allows us to see how an empowered Governor General could serve as an effective check against the potential partisan misuse of the executive prerogative powers.The final section will reflect on the tension between strengthening the power of unelected Governors General and the project of democratic reform. I will conclude by suggesting that a proper conception of democratic reform in a Westminster system must balance responsiveness to voters with the ability of the House of Commons to hold the Prime Minister and Cabinet to account.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".