Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are told that an efficient and effective parliament needs functioning political parties. They are necessary to ensure stable government majorities and to provide a link between voters and legislators. Without parties, chaos and instability would ensue as governments would rise and fall on the whim of individual legislators. However, this assumption has largely gone untested, primarily because parliaments in almost all western democracies are entirely dominated by parties. The aim of this paper is to expand the study of parliament and to examine what happens when parties are not dominant in parliament, to the extent that they are entirely absent or in a minority. The cases for inclusion are the primary democratic parliaments where this occurs, almost all of which are at the regional level. These include: the Tasmanian Legislative Council in Australia, the Nebraskan state assembly in the US, the Legislative Assemblies of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut in Canada, the legislatures in the British dependencies of the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and the Falkland Islands. Also included are the national parliaments of several Pacific island states (e.g. Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu) where there are no functioning political parties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.490 | 0.301 |
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".