Bibliographic record
Abstract
am pleased to be here representing the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians (CAFP), an association that has hundreds, indeed thousands of years of political and parliamentary experience.It is rapidly becoming a formidable organization in the field of democratic and parliamentary issues.I had been planning to speak about the need for political nomination reform as the Association has recently undertaken a study of political nominations as currently practiced.The abuses that characterized early elections in Canada have largely been eliminated due to the professional work of Elections Canada.They have not been entirely eliminated from the system however, they have simply migrated downward to the riding associations as recent headlines demonstrate.Nomination reform is not my topic today.You will however be hearing from the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians on that topic in the near future.What I will be speaking about is an epic procedural battle that took place in the House of Commons over the Nisga'a Treaty.The Nisga'a Treaty created a land base for the Nisga'a First Nation and provided for a form of self-government.The Reform Party opposed the Treaty because it established selfgovernment for the Nisga'a in the same legislation that created the reserve.Constitutional experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian and Northern Affairs expressed concerns because reserves, once created, become constitutionally protected.By joining the two elements in a single piece of legislation, the governance provisions may not be subject to legislative amendment in the future, if and when changes are found to be desirable.The dynamics of Parliament, both in the House and in committee do not allow for meaningful participation by opposition parties.Frequently, legislation is introduced to committee with the statement that the government will not consider amending the legislation.The Nisga'a legislation was one such bill.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".