Mini Citizensâ Assemblies on the Future of Canadian Federalism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian federalism and its future are undeniably a frequent and important topic of debate. Many people have their own opinions on the topic but they rarely have the opportunity to discuss it with fellow Canadians, experts and politicians in a setting conducive to learning and debate. With this in mind, three small citizens' assemblies on the future of federalism in Canada were held in the spring of 2008, two in Montreal and one in Kingston. For over four hours, participants had the opportunity to learn about and discuss topics relating to federalism with experts, politicians and other Canadians. The qualitative and quantitative data collected throughout these meetings provide a clearer picture of Canadians' perceptions and preferences regarding the future of their country and their province. The initial results show a wide range of knowledge, attitudes and opinions among participants at a single meeting and from one meeting to the next. There is no clear profile of a âfederal citizenâ but rather a multitude of profiles, sometimes very diverse. For comparison purposes, two more citizens' assemblies will be held in Belgium to compare French-speaking and Flemish-speaking Belgians' perceptions and preferences regarding federalism.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".