Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite its prominent position as the upper House of the Malaysian Parliament, the inherent structural and operational weaknesses of the Dewan Negara culminates in a chamber that fails to inspire public attention and confidence. This is a significant contrast with the attention that the lower House, the Dewan Rakyat usually draws and is a departure from the original vision that it should be an influential forum of debate and discussion. Nonetheless, the general apathy with which the public may perceive the chamber should not distract from the benefits that serious reform of the chamber may provide. As attention paid to parliamentary reform in Malaysia increasingly focuses overwhelmingly on the Dewan Rakyat, it is equally important that the Dewan Negara be considered as an integral element to any parliamentary reform efforts. In dealing with this issue, this paper explores the historical evolution of the Dewan Negara and the current issues it faces. It then performs a comparative study of the Australian and Canadian Senates to glean usable lessons, culminating in a discussion of possible reform options for the Dewan Negara.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".