Bibliographic record
Abstract
† ood morning everyone.As you just heard, I have been asked to share some thoughts with you on the state of our democracy, based on my experience as Government House Leader in a minority Parliament.Perhaps the right place to start is by telling you about an article that I read a few years ago that had quite an impact on me.I came across it in the Toronto Globe and Mail and it kept me thinking for days.It was about the changing skills that leaders of multinational corporations need to succeed in the New Economy and what it might mean for Canadians.The article said, and I quote: "…the traditional [leadership] style of leading the troops over the hill to conquer is out of favour in an economy increasingly marked by mergers, joint ventures and co-operative networking.Being able to work collaborativelydelegating responsibility and appreciating diversity-is becoming the way of the New Economy…Canadian senior executives are in the enviable position of being leaders in this approach."1
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.008 |
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".