Bibliographic record
Abstract
lNmoDUCTION F or most people, Friday afternoon signals the end of a five~day workweek.Computers are shut down for the weekend, voice mail is turned on, and office lights are shut off.Some workers even leave a little early to get a head~start on traffic.But 20 April 2007 was not just any Friday in Manitoba's political circles-unbeknownst to just about everyone except Premier Gary Doer and his closest advisors.That was the day Mr. Doer called Manitoba's 39 th general election, capitalizing on a longstanding rule that allows the governing party to unilaterally select an election date.Incumbent political parties hold a massive tactical advantage over their opponents in jurisdictions that allow the government to set its own election date.Unfortunately, as history shows, that advantage is frequently employed in a less~than .. altruistic manner.This has led several provinces and the federal government to remove the incumbent's power to arbitrarily set election dates.Questions about its constitutionality have been raised, but it is argued fixed date election legislation-which sets a maximum duration for Parliament, at the expiry of which an election will be held-is distinct from the sphere of power guaranteed to the Lieutenant Governor and Governor General.The law is constitutionally sound, and as a result Manitoba should move to adopt fixed date election legislation as a means of restoring a measure of fairness, transparency and improved governance to the electoral process. II. TIME TO SANDBAG UNFIXED ELECTION DATESSpeculation about a Manitoba election had been rampant leading up to Friday, 20 April 2007.But, as in other jurisdictions with unfixed election dates, no one except the premier and his inner circle of advisors knew when the call would come.And so it came, just hours after Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.141 | 0.042 |
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".