MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7136087088 · doi:10.22353/nlr.2025.06.26

Issue of Increasing the Number of Members in the State Great Khural (Parliament of Mongolia)

2025· article· W7136087088 on OpenAlexaff
Bumdari Dagva-Ochir

Bibliographic record

VenueNUM Law Review · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsLibrary of Parliament
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParliamentLegitimacyAccountabilityState (computer science)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Members of Parliament are elected to represent the citizens and make decisions on their behalf for a period of 4 years. Officially, parliament serves four main functions: representing citizens, approving laws, overseeing and approving the budget, and ensuring the legitimacy of the parliament. However, in recent years, there has been significant debate regarding the parliament’s capacity, the accountability and ethics of its members. This relates to the weakening of supervision and responsibility for the work of parliamentarians, but it should also be considered in terms of the appropriate size of the parliament. The concept of an appropriate size of parliament encompasses factors such as the number of members, their ability to represent citizens effectively, and the workload necessary for them to fulfill their duties during their elected term. In our country, it is crucial to study and calculate the optimal number of members of parliament in order to effectively fulfill their primary functions. Улсын Их Хурлын гишүүдийн тоог нэмэх эсэх асуудал УИХ-ын гишүүн бүрэн эрхийнхээ хугацаанд парламентын легитим байдлыг ханган иргэдийг ашиг сонирхолыг төлөөлөх замаар хууль батлах, хяналт тавих улмаар төсөв батлах гэсэн үндсэн чиг үүргийг хэрэгжүүлдэг. Гэтэл сүүлийн жилүүдэд парламентын гишүүдийн иргэдийг төлөөлөх чадамж суларч хариуцлага, ёс зүйн асуудал ихээр хөндөгдөх болсон нь парламентын гишүүн “...төрийн эрх барих дээд байгууллагад сонгогдсон ард түмний элч мөн бөгөөд нийт иргэн, улсын ашиг сонирхлыг эрхэмлэн баримтална...” гэсэн үүргээ биелүүлэхэд сөргөөр нөлөөлөж байгаа асуудлыг судлах хэрэгцээ байгааг илэрхийлж байна. Парламент бүхэлдээ үүрэгт ажлаа бүрэн дүүрэн гүйцэтгэж чадахгүй байгааг судлан шинжилдэг парламентын зохист хэмжээ (optimal size of parliaments) хэмээх ойлголт байдаг. Энэхүү судалгааны зорилго нь манай улсын парламентын гишүүдийн тоо хэд байвал зохист хэмжээтэй болохыг судлахад чиглэгдсэн. Судалгааны үр дүн нь УИХ-ын гишүүдийн зохист тоог өөрсдийн уламжлал, газар зүй, засаг захиргааны хуваарилалт, сонгуулийн тогтолцоо зэргийг харгалзан үзэж 114, 151, 155 гэсэн тоон утгуудаас сонгох боломжтойг судалгааны үр дүнд тооцон гаргасан. Түлхүүр үг: Парламентын зохист хэмжээ, гишүүдийн тоо, төлөөллийн ардчилал, кубын хууль, куб язгуур.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNUM Law ReviewSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207