Bibliographic record
Abstract
ood afternoon, and thank you very much for the invitation to be here with you to discuss this very important subject.I caught part of the last presentation, and quite enjoyed Professor Schwartz's comments, and he has a wonderful way of bringing reality down into a couple of sentences.The one thing that did puzzle me was the question about how to take politics and ideology out of decision-making, and I wondered if I was in the right room.The nature of Parliament, the nature of the legislature, is political decisions.All of our decisions, whether we are elected politicians, or whether we are in another capacity-we all bring a certain ideological perspective, we bring a political perspective.That's why we have different political parties in the House of Commons or in the legislature, and it's in that debate, I think, that we see progress.The issue of Parliamentary reform, I think, is very pertinent, and I think very timely.I want to thank the Institute for putting on this conference.During the last 10 years, I think many Canadians have perceived that the so-called democratic deficit in Parliament has grown larger.(Indeed it was the Prime Minister's battle cry that he was going to cure the democratic deficit.)Canadians have been increasingly cynical about the way elections have been called, how campaigns have been conducted, and indeed, how in fact turnout in these elections has gone down.Electoral laws have been hastily put in place to benefit the government and to limit free-speech.Closure and the time allocation have been employed in Parliament to an unprecedented degree.Appointments to some of our most important institutions, the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada (and indeed all superior courts) have remained the personal preserve of a political decision maker, namely, the Prime Minister.There is no question that the system must change, and it's not good enough to talk about the democratic deficit.We need to end it.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".