Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work will examine the Senate of Canada and its undemocratic features by utilizing a list of democratic criteria.Robert A. Dahl's On Democracy provides a basis for the need for Canada's political institutions to undergo an evaluation of how well the Canadian Senate fairs when examined alongside the minimum amount of democracy needed in political institutions within large-scale democracies.The research questions will be: can the Senate of Canada, as a governmental institution in Canada, be considered democratic or undemocratic?If undemocratic, what reform should the Canadian Senate accept to become a more democratic institution?Upon examination of the Canadian Senate and its democracy, it stands that the Senate continues to violate democratic criteria, ultimately making it undemocratic.This will be proven through the following points: the Canadian Senate's structure formation is undemocratic as it violates the democratic expectations of having free, fair and frequent elections, having elected officials, obtaining voting equality, and allowing for control over the agenda to exist.Also, the Canadian Senate's requirements for senators are undemocratic through its prevention of associational autonomy, inclusion of adults, and disallowing inclusive citizenship.Lastly, this work will find that the Senate's interactions with those part of the Canadian populace take on undemocratic aspects as it fails to facilitate effective participation and enlightened understanding.For Canada to progress toward democratic ideals, it must come to terms with its undemocratic institutions and move towards making significant reforms to counteract its undemocratic aspects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".