Bibliographic record
Abstract
In March 2015, the Italian Chamber of Deputies voted on a far-reaching constitutional reform; assuming a successful outcome of the long and complex amendment iter, this reform will have the effect to radically alter (among other things) the role, nature and composition of the Senate and of the perfect bicameral system currently in place. Interestingly enough, Italy is not the only country currently engaged in a political and institutional debate on a cardinal reform of the Senate: also in Canada, the role and composition of the Upper Chamber has often been contested, as this institution, in its existing arrangement, does not seem to fulfill the tasks intended for it by the framers of the Canadian federation. While over the years a number of unsuccessful attempts to reform have followed one another, the debate on the very nature of the Canadian Senate has culminated, for the time being, with the opinion rendered in 2014 by the Supreme Court of Canada which helps delineating some essential traits of the Upper Chamber. After a brief overview of the constitutional reform of the Senate under discussion in Italy, this paper will illustrate the main points raised in the opinion rendered by the Canadian Supreme Court, with the ultimate objective to show potential points of convergence and divergence between the Italian and Canadian experiences. While the nature of the Canadian federal arrangement is profoundly different from Italian regionalism, this contribution suggests the idea that surprising analogies can be found between these two countries.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".