The Private Member Battleground: The Future of Private Member's Bills at the Manitoba Legislative Assembly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through analyzing the aspect of political positioning through Opposition PMBs, this paper builds upon a recent trend of scholarly attention to Private Member's Bills and their purpose in legislatures.The Journal of Legislative Studies has published papers on the legislative influence of PMBs at the Federal level in Canada, such as Kelly Blidook's article, "Exploring the Role of 'Legislators' in Canada: Do Members of Parliament Influence Policy?" 2 A series of articles has appeared in the Manitoba Law Journal's "Underneath the Golden Boy" publication which focus on particular PMBs and their purposes in the Manitoba Legislature.3 Memoirs, articles and interviews with past MLAs or Premiers, such as Howard Pawley, 4 reveal good insight into the political circumstances of parties in Opposition at the Manitoba Legislature as well as certain aspects of their political behavior.Local Manitoban newspapers such as the Brandon Sun, The Winnipeg Sun and the Winnipeg Free Press also provide coverage of PMBs as they are introduced in the Legislature, albeit coverage may be limited.At the Standing Committee on Private Bills, June 11, 2012, four relatively innocuous Private Member's Bills came under consideration.5 By innocuous, this paper means they were not meant to be overtly critical of the Government and there was very little, if any, public disapproval of these Bills.All four of them received widespread support among the three political parties within the Legislative Assembly and all three public presenters had a polite and receptive audience of MLAs and staff.Mr. Graydon (Emerson) thanked the Members on both sides of the house who spoke in favor of his Private Member's Bill Bill 208, The Remembrance Day Awareness Act.6 However, at this meeting of the Standing Committee on 2 Kelly Blidook, "Exploring the Role of 'Legislators' in Canada: Do Members of Parliament Influence Policy?" (2010) 16:1 Journal of Legislative Studies 32. 3 See e.g.Bryan Schwartz & Andrew Buck, "Bill 37: Battle Hymn of the Incumbent" (2009) 6 Underneath the Golden Boy 1; Adam Nathanson, "Legislating Jordan's Principle: An Indirect Success" (2011) 34:3 Man LJ 215.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".