MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3141454870 · doi:10.52279/jlss.02.02.5865

Legislations in Parliament of Canada and Pakistan: A Comparative Study of House of Commons and National Assembly

2020· article· en· W3141454870 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sidra Akram, Mian Muhammad Azhar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Law & Social Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentPolityHouse of CommonsLegislationPolitical sciencePublic administrationPoliticsRepresentation (politics)CommonsCorporate governanceComparative researchCitizen journalismLawSociologySocial scienceManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parliament is an exclusive and unique representative institution and performs key functions such as law-making, representation of constituents, amending laws, highlighting and aspirations their issues and through resolutions prescribe solutions to such key challenges faced by the polity. Parliament established on the behalf of people to represent their voice and provide them opportunities for more participatory and open governance. This research focused upon the performance of both lower Houses of Canada and Pakistan in 21st Century. The performance of the parliamentarian will also examine in this study. This comparative study will extend the boundaries of comparative politics and system analysis theory. This research discussed the role of parliament and basically the legislation process in parliament. Legislation in parliaments of new democracies and comparative study is useful research topic in Political Science and will provide a guideline to parliamentarians to work better.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0230.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Law & Social StudiesSame topicPolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastFrench-language works237,207