Will the Reform Act, 2014, Alter the Canadian Phenomenon of Party Discipline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
a private member's bill sponsored by Conservative backbencher Michael Chong, received royal assent.This Bill has the potential to dramatically alter the Canadian phenomenon of party discipline, 2 which some regard as "the strictest in the world," 3 by empowering party caucuses and by reducing the power that party leaders exert over their caucuses.For example, the Bill, which came into force seven days after the federal election of October 19, 2015, 4 removes the party leader's statutory power to approve or reject official party candidates for election.5 Further, the Bill provides that each party caucus, 6 with twelve or more members at 1 Canada, Bill C-586, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Parliament of Canada Act (candidacy and caucus reforms), 2nd sess, 41st Parl, 2014 (assented to 23 June 2015) [Reform Act, 2014].2 For the purposes of this paper, the term "party cohesion" often substitutes for the more familiar term "party discipline," and refers to the unified behaviour, both within and outside of Parliament, of Members of Parliament (MPs) and of party candidates in federal elections.For example, if MPs generally act in unison when voting on matters in the House of Commons, speaking in official House debates, asking and answering questions in committees or in question period, interacting with the media, and dealing with constituents or the Canadian public at large, then such MPs may be said to exhibit a high degree of party cohesion.3 Gloria Galloway, "Is Canada's party discipline the strictest in the world?Experts say yes", The Globe and Mail (7 February 2013), online < www.theglobeandmail.com>.4
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".