MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W329182439

Absentee and Write-In Ballots: Constitutional and Policy Considerations

2012· article· en· W329182439 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert E. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian parliamentary review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw, Rights, and Freedoms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBallotVotingPolitical scienceSpoilt voteStraight-ticket votingPublic administrationSecret ballotDemocracyFirst-past-the-post votingGroup voting ticketTurnoutLawSupreme courtPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most reported statistic on election night, apart from the vote count, is the percentage of eligible citizens who cast a ballot. Voter turnout is frequently cited as a measure of the health of our democracy. In recent years policy makers and Chief Electoral Officers have dedicated themselves to creating multiple �voting opportunities� in order to make voting more accessible to the electorate. Since 2007, Newfoundland and Labrador has allowed an elector to vote up to four weeks before an election is called and to do so by writing into a blank space, on an absentee ballot, his or her party of choice. This practice of pre-writ voting, and voting-by-party, is currently the subject of a constitutional challenge before the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court. The ultimate decision could have an impact for election law in all Canadian jurisdictions. This article looks at the situation across Canada as well as the specifics of the Newfoundland case.

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)0.058
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0580.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0220.019
Scholarly communication0.0250.006
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian parliamentary reviewSame topicLaw, Rights, and FreedomsFrench-language works237,207