Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inspiration for this book came from a conversation with my son one evening as we watched the national news.It had just been announced that Prime Minister Stephen Harper was suing the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as the leader of the party and several other members of Parliament, over comments published on their website in the so-called Cadman affair.My son turned to me and said, "He can't do that, can he?"The answer, of course, was that "well, yes, he can."The specific case fell outside of the scope of parliamentary privilege, and there was no legal barrier to it.At the same time, I shared my son's discomfort with the notion that political issues between the parties could lead to litigation.This led to research into the scope of parliamentary privilege that was presented in 2009-10 at the annual conferences of the Atlantic Provinces' Political Science Association and the British Association of Canadian Studies.That research forms the basis of Chapter 4 of this book.It concluded that our current structures of parliamentary privilege are ill suited to modern political practices.Lawsuits like the Prime Minister's allegations against the Liberal party, I argued, should be understood as examples of strategic litigation against public participation.This, in turn, led to the observation that this was a relatively ignored topic in Canadian political science and that a fuller book-length examination of the topic would be a timely addition to the academic literature on Canadian public interest law.In pursuing a major book project, one requires the support of a collegial and intellectually stimulating environment.Accordingly, I need to thank
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.580 | 0.444 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".