Bibliographic record
Abstract
By constitutional convention the Queen and her representatives, the governor-generals, can act only on the advice of their respective responsible ministers. Therefore all of the powers that are in their possession, whether their source is derived from prerogative or the constitution, are exercised not personally by them but through cabinet ministers. However, in certain extraordinary circumstances the Crown is constitutionally entitled to act on its own initiative, without or - better still - contrary to the advice that it receives. Those powers that can be exercised personally by the Queen are commonly referred to as reserve powers, sometimes also as personal prerogatives. The most important of them are the power to appoint and dismiss a prime minister and to dissolve parliament. Reserve powers also include the right to refuse royal sanction, the appointment of peers, judges or senators, as well as summoning and proroguing parliament. The scope of reserve powers differ according to local circumstances, i.e. the governor generals of Australia and Canada cannot refuse royal assent because of the judicial review procedure in these countries. They remain in reserve until the circumstances demand that they be used. When the Crown decides to act on its own initiative, its sole justification is the need to protect constitutional democracy. The author shows that the exercise of the reserve powers can serve this end very well by making - somehow ironically - the undemocratic Crown the last and the safest bulwark of 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".