Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario fulfilled a campaign promise by announcing the creation of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.The purpose of the Citizens' Assembly was to examine and make recommendations for reforming Ontario's electoral system.After eight months of deliberation, the final report of the Citizens' Assembly recommended that Ontario adopt a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system, instead of maintaining a Single Member Plurality (SMP) electoral system.As a result of this recommendation, a referendum was called concurrently with the province's general election to give Ontarians the opportunity to either adopt the Citizens' Assembly's proposal or maintain the status quo.On October 10, 2007 Ontarians decisively rejected the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation thereby defeating the attempt at reforming the province's electoral system.Electoral reform failed in the province of Ontario due to apathy amongst the province's electorate, partisan self-interest and a lack of information regarding the referendum.To understand how these aspects form the basis for its defeat it is necessary to provide an overview of: (i) the climate in which electoral reform developed at the federal and provincial levels across Canada; (ii) the emergence of electoral reform in Ontario; and (iii) the work conducted by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. I. ELECTORAL REFORM IN CANADAElectoral reform became a significant issue in the early part of the 1990s, as Canada was gripped with "a democratic malaise evidenced by decreasing levels of political trust, declining voter turnout, increasing J.D.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".