MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036469623

A Comparative Overview of the Canadian Senate and the British House of Lords

2018· article· en· W7036469623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicNatural Compound Pharmacology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101HyporeflexiaDysgeusiaDiafiltrationLiquationDemotionHemopericardium
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this overview is to highlight the role which is played by the Canadian Senate and the British House of Lords in their constitutional legal systems, and to attempt to underline what similarities or differences can be identified in relation to their composition and functions. This paper will analyse whether they have an actual representative capacity and if they are able to perform the typical functions which are normally allocated to the upper chambers, functioning as a “sober second thought” and a house of check on the majority expressed in the lower chamber, usually connected to the Cabinet. The contribution of these chambers to parliamentary systems of government will also be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.013
Science and technology studies0.0050.044
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.)Same topicNatural Compound Pharmacology StudiesFrench-language works237,207