Global Integrity Report: Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highlights: Despite strong performance in many areas, Canada continues to struggle with controlling the influence of money in the political process. There are no limits on loans to political parties or candidates, and in nomination and political party leadership races, loopholes allow for secrecy when it comes to financial contributions to candidates. Despite cooling-off periods for officials leaving the executive branch, Members of Parliament and their staff are not subject to any post-government employment restrictions, encouraging a revolving door effect between lawmakers and lobbyists. Meanwhile, the personal assets disclosures of Canadian Senators remain confidential and inaccessible to the public, a bizarre exception for one of the world's wealthier and more developed democracies. Judicial accountability is also weak, with no disclosure of personal assets or gifts, no restrictions on receiving gifts, and a complaints process in which judges judge other judges. Overall, government accountability watchdog agencies (including the police) either lack powers to enforce laws or have a weak enforcement record.This peer-reviewed country report includes:Integrity Indicators Scorecard: Scores, scoring criteria, commentary, references, and peer review perspectives for more than 300 Integrity Indicators.Reporter's Notebook: An on-the-ground look at corruption and integrity from a leading local journalist.Corruption Timeline: Ten years of political context to today's corruption and integrity issues.Country Facts: Statistical context for each country.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.037 |
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".