Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like all edited books, this volume is the product of many people's efforts, and not just of those who contributed chapters.A number of other individuals and organizations played a major role in the process that led to its publication.The Canadian Study of Parliament Group ( cspg ) launched the project by sponsoring the original meeting of contributors.This provided an opportunity to share initial thoughts and review the thrust and direction of reforms to parliamentary democracy that had been carried out or were under discussion in the countries represented.Carmen DePape, then the secretary of the cspg , was instrumental in arranging the schedule and itineraries of a truly international cast of scholars.Without her enormous effort this entire project would not have gotten off the ground.Robert Marleau, then Clerk of the House of Commons, was a huge supporter of this project, and arranged for logistical and financial support for the meeting.We very much appreciate all these contributions.We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers who offered some very sound and helpful views on how to improve the consistency and quality of the volume.Many of their suggestions were reflected in revisions to the various chapters.The book has been strengthened as a result.We appreciated the patience of the contributors who faced a few delays and many e-mails from the two of
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".