DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT IN PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMS. INNOVATIONS IN THE LEGISLATION AND POLITICAL PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The institution of parliamentary dissolution is necessary to resolve the conflict between the parliament and the government. The dissolution of parliament results from a vote no confidence to the government, as well as it happens in cases prescribed by law. One of the most common options is the dissolution at the initiative of the prime minister to create advantages for the ruling party in early elections. The article highlights new trends in the development of the institution of parliament dissolution. One of them is the rarer use of dissolution to overcome the crisis in the relationship between the branches of government. The author argues that parliament dissolution is gradually turning from an institution of subjective discretion of the prime minister and government into a legal way to resolve deadlocks in the political process. This goal is served by the constitutional and legal restrictions on dissolution, which are widespread in the legislation of many parliamentary countries. The author notes that today there is a constitutionalization of the dissolution institute with the simultaneous depoliticization of that institution, namely, the narrowing of the freedom of choice of actors, primarily the prime minister. At the same time, in contemporary parliamentary systems, there is a different amount of dissolution legislative restrictions. The author analyzes such a kind of restriction on dissolution as the introduction of a fixed date for elections to the parliaments of Great Britain and Canada. The article claims that in practice this restriction does not lead to the weakening of the prime minister’s power of dissolution. It is concluded that despite innovations in the development of the parliamentary dissolution institution, the parliamentary system remains flexible, making it possible to use dissolution as a mechanism for resolving political differences
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".