MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530352702 · doi:10.1111/polp.12067

The Inequality Turnout Nexus: New Evidence from Presidential Elections

2014· article· en· W1530352702 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Stockemer, Stéphanie Parent

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics &amp Policy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential systemTurnoutNexus (standard)ClosenessVotingInequalityDemographic economicsPopulationPolitical scienceSample (material)FederalismPolitical economyEconomicsPoliticsSociologyDemographyLawMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article adds to the burgeoning literature examining the macro‐level influence of income inequalities and electoral turnout by evaluating the relationship between the two variables across a global sample of 161 presidential elections from 1990 to 2010. Controlling for compulsory voting, semi‐presidentialism, federalism, regime type, development, population size, and the closeness of the election, we find that dispersions in income neither directly nor indirectly influence macro‐level electoral participation in presidential political systems. Rather, the variable's impact on electoral turnout is statistically insignificant and empirically nonsubstantial. In this sense, our article rejects both the power and the conflict theories' predictions on the supposed relationship between the two concepts at the macro‐level.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics &amp PolicySame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207