Bibliographic record
Abstract
he power of incumbency offers up a number of vehicles for government messages to the electorate.In Manitoba, as an example, there is an entire branch of the public sector devoted to communication.! In addition to the public service, incumbents can make use of news releases, official government documents like newsletters and glossy periodicals, the government's website and other highly visible media like billboards, bus advertisements and bulk mail outs.The value derived from the exposure of incumbency and patronage further tips the communication balance away from challengers and toward the governing party.As Richard Briffault explains, these "built . . .in" advantages include:[Tlhe free media attention he gets during his term in office, to the opportunity to provide constituency service, to the fact that the incumbent was popular enough to win the last election.These advantages contribute to, and are typically reinforced by, the incumbent's superior ability to raise money.2Simply put, the government has a massive advantage over its rivals when it comes to getting the word out.Why should exclusive use of the public purse for partisan communication be added to this list?Policy, jurisprudence and basic electoral fairness suggest reform should be undertaken to address the incumbent-challenger communications imbalance.This section of the paper proposes two separate solutions to the problem: fIrst, a total ban on all publicly funded partisan government communication; and second, a comprehensive Manitoba Civil Service Commission, "Communications Services Manitoba Division '\ Manitoba Civil Service Commission online: .The division's mandate is to "enhance the quality and cost-effectiveness of government advertising and communications while ensuring consistency with provindal objectives, priorities and expenditure guidelines.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.004 |
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".