A legal analysis on the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in commonwealth countries / Mohd Nor Hafidzuddin Yusoff, Nurul Nabila Hasni and Asmarina Sakila Kamarolzaman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research traces the origin and the development of the doctrine of Ministerial Responsibility in Malaysia, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Comparison has been made between Malaysia, United Kingdom, Australia and Canada to know the development of the doctrine in order to preserve its dignity and importance as it has its own role and shall be uphold in parliamentary tradition. In Malaysia the development of the doctrine in ensuring answerability and accountability of ministers is not effective as compare to the other commonwealth countries. In United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, the convention on Ministerial responsibility has been properly codified in various codes that provide guidelines for minister in performing their duty and in ensuring the integrity of the minister and the government as a whole. In contrast, in Malaysia there is only guidelines, power and methods of appointment of ministers that is provided in Article 39-43 of Federal Constitution and Ministerial Function Act 1969. The doctrine of ministerial responsibility is very essential and important in parliamentary system. It is necessary for the government to maintain unity for effectiveness and confidence of electoral support. Thus this research will consider the suitability of the code of ministerial conduct that to be adopted in Malaysia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".