A comparative examination and assessment of national study commissions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation conducted a comparative examination of executive-appointed national study (advisory) commissions utilized by Canada and the United States. Such commissions of inquiry are ad hoc bodies which are established by executive authority, assigned a specific issue, crisis or incident to investigate, conduct their affairs openly, and conclude with a publicly issued final report. In the Canadian context there has been very little study of the more than 350 Royal Commissions of Inquiry created since Confederation. American presidential study commissions from Truman to the first Nixon administration were the subject of a 1974 study. This study expanded on that earlier work. In both political systems their usefulness has often been the subject of criticism. This study sought to assess their usefulness in terms of whether the final reports of national study commissions were publicly and positively accepted by the president or prime minister which had authorized their creations. In order to conduct an examination of Canadian Royal Commissions each inquiry had to be identified, each commission's final report had to be assessed and each Order in Council which authorizes an inquiry had to be surveyed. In order to determine their acceptance by the sitting prime minister the Debates for the House of Commons were studied for evidence of public and positive reaction. This procedure was followed for all Royal Commissions since 1867. American presidential study commissions for the period starting with the second Nixon administration and ending with the Bush administration (1993). The Public Papers of the President series was surveyed for instances of public and positive reaction on the part of the authorizing president. Classifications systems—in terms of commission type—were created for both Canadian and American national study commissions. This classification typology was utilized to compare commissions creation rates in both nations in terms of individual prime minister or president and by their party affiliation. Canadian commission members were identified in order to examine any appointment patterns in terms of each commissioner's occupation, province, and gender. In spite of the consistent criticism which national study commissions, this dissertation found that nearly 2/3 of the commissions in both political systems received a public and positive response on the part of the sitting prime minister or president. This study argues that executive acceptance of commission findings is a significant step by which problems and issues find their way onto the formal agenda. The agenda setting implications of such a high acceptance
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 | 0.026 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".