MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251146819 · doi:10.1108/oxan-db208003

Electoral reform poses risks for Trudeau

2016· other· en· W4251146819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald expert briefings · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferendumParliamentOpposition (politics)NegotiationPolitical scienceConstitutionalityPublic administrationDemocracyPrime ministerGovernment (linguistics)Cabinet (room)Electoral reformLiberal PartyPolitical economyPoliticsLawEconomicsConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject Canadian electoral reform. Significance Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal government has begun the process of electoral reform. An all-party committee will consider alternative methods of allocating parliamentary seats. The government has signalled that this important change to the democratic process may be implemented without consulting the people in a referendum, to the consternation of the opposition Conservatives and New Democrats, given the murky constitutionality of a Parliament-driven reform process. The outcome will have implications for Canada's electoral map and Trudeau's premiership. Impacts Proportional representation may be a fall-back option for Trudeau if Parliament-imposed ranked balloting proves too controversial. Provincial backlash over lack of consultation could envenom negotiations in other policy areas, such as health spending or climate. Smaller left-leaning parties, such as the NDP and Greens, may achieve greater federal electoral success under a new system.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.006

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerald expert briefingsSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207