Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction If asked, most Canadians can probably name a current or past public inquiry. Canadians and policy actors are well aware that public inquiries are part of the policy landscape and have contributed to the policy process on a wide range of policy issues. At any given time, politicians, policy scholars, the media, interest groups and the public are aware of ongoing public inquiries and pay attention to their role in policy analysis and the policy process. National inquiries often get significant media attention and some provincial inquiries are regularly covered on the national news. The National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls , for example, has recently garnered the attention of the nation after its launch in 2016. In addition to public salience, generations of scholars have also been interested in questions about public inquiries and their role in the policy process and in policy analysis. Public inquiries have been a part of the policy process since before Confederation as one of many political features inherited from the British political system. Public inquiries and ‘royal investigations’ stem from the British monarch's royal prerogative to order investigations, which date back to King Henry VII in 1517 (Makarenko, 2007). Indeed, the British government sent Lord Durham to the colonies in 1838 to investigate the causes of rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada; his famous report led to a series of changes in the policy process, including the union of the two Canadas into a single colony, paving the way for what became a policy system based on British-style responsible parliamentary government and the division of powers. The Government of Upper and Lower Canada passed the first Canadian public inquiry law in 1846, later modified after Confederation in 1868. Since that time there have been hundreds of public inquiries at the federal and provincial levels across Canada on virtually every major policy issue, with modified versions of inquiries and investigations at the local government level. At the federal level alone there have been royal commissions on a wide range of important policy issues, including the Royal Commission on the Defence of Canada (1861), on Railways (1887), on Dominion–Provincial Relations (1937–1940), on Energy (1957–1959), on Canada's Economic Prospects (Gordon Commission 1955–1958), on Government Organization (1960–1962), on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963–1967), and on the Status of Women (1967–1970), among numerous other policy issues.
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 | 0.059 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.007 |
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".