Questions to the Prime Minister in the Canadian House of Commons: Transformation or tweak?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Parliamentary questions are important democratic accountability instruments, but little is known about how these procedures are reformed, and with what consequences. This paper uses the introduction of Prime Minister’s Question Period (PMQP) in the Canadian House of Commons in 2017 as a case study of questioning procedure reform. Under PMQP, the Prime Minister would answer all questions once a week, diverging from the traditional Question Period where the Prime Minister answered a few questions daily alongside ministers. As this is a way in which other parliaments have reformed questioning procedures, the case has wider comparative relevance. Using quantitative analysis of prime ministerial attendance and questions, as well as interviews, this paper explores the effects of the reform. Findings indicate that PMQP is similar to other individualized questioning procedures such as the UK’s Prime Minister’s Questions, but retains features of Question Period such as party control, and a confrontational style.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it