MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Westminster Model as a Constitutional Archetype

2020· book-chapter· en· W4237056658 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
W. Elliot Bulmer

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionArchetypeCharacter (mathematics)DemocracyVariety (cybernetics)Political scienceIdentity (music)LawSociologyComputer sciencePhilosophyMathematicsPoliticsTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter defines the Westminster Model and describes its historical development, arguing that a Westminster Model constitution is most suitable for Britain's needs. It distinguishes the essential elements that define the nature, character, and identity of the Westminster Model from the particular aspects of any national constitution. It also mentions Arend Lijphart, who attempted to define the Westminster Model in terms of macro-level institutional design choices and equates it with a majoritarian understanding of democracy. The chapter looks at the constitutional systems of Australia, Barbados, Canada, India, Malta, and New Zealand that have a considerable variety of design choice on issues relating to a written constitution. It uses the six countries to define the Westminster Model as a global-imperial family of constitutional systems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.567
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.220 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicJudicial and Constitutional StudiesFrench-language works237,207