An Opportunity for Change in the Functioning of Legislatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 The 1990s brought a recognition of a disturbing phenomena dubbed by Political Scientists as the democratic deficit. Academics and politicians alike began to speak of the lack of democracy often found in the decision-making processes of government. Many were alarmed about the significant amount of power exercised by senior government officials and the executive level of government. The general mood of the public indicated that Canada was, at many different levels of government, experiencing a democratic deficit. Both provincially and federally, fewer Canadians voted in elections. In the 2004 federal election, only 22 % of first time eligible voters participated in the democratic process.1 Ironically, more people voted for the winner of Canadian Idol, than for the leader of the country.2 Citizens also had trouble identifying those that were in contention to be the Prime Minister. Only 30 % of eligible voters could identify the Leader of the Opposition.3 Clearly, citizens were detached from the political process and were not utilised in the creation of public policy. Governments and academics began to examine how the public could be re-engaged in democracy.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".