MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136166280 · doi:10.1111/capa.12406

Representational commissions and policy‐making on Indigenous and women’s issues: A case‐study of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party of Canada

2021· article· en· W3136166280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Corinne Allsop, Emmanuelle Richez

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Administration · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDemocracyPublic administrationPolitical sciencePoliticsLiberal PartyPolitical economyLawSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The New Democratic Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada have put in place representational commissions to encourage politically underrepresented groups, such as women and Indigenous Peoples, to be active party members and to contribute to policy development. Whether they influence policy on Indigenous and women’s issues is unclear. This article analyzes political conventions’ policy resolutions, electoral platforms, and governmental actions. Can representational commissions influence policy on Indigenous and women’s issues?

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public AdministrationSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207