Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada's relationship with electoral reform is a compelling study, as the inherited British electoral system, single member plurality (SMP), is not well suited for Canada's electoral climate. In order to properly represent Canada's political climate and diversity, mixed member proportional representation (MMP) would pose a better option for an electoral system, allowing Canada to keep regional representation while still incorporating proportional representation. Looking at New Zealand's adaptation of mixed member proportional over 25 years is a good start for researching how this could be adapted in Canada, as well as researching the benefits of multi-party systems and occasional coalition governments since these are often considered the side effects of proportional representation. Finally, researching Britain's success of having more members of Parliament to reduce the power of the Prime Minister and the Party Whip should be crucial when deciding how Canada should incorporate MMPs' list MPs feature. This research leads me to the conclusion that it would be beneficial for Canada to change its electoral system from SMP to MMP, by creating more seats in parliament to accommodate list MPs instead of merging electoral districts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.001 |
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".