MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604575695 · doi:10.24124/c677/200985

Seat Imbalance in Provincial Elections Since 1900: A Quantitative Explanation

2009· article· en· W1604575695 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alan Siaroff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDominance (genetics)LegislatureElectoral systemArgument (complex analysis)Political sciencePolitical economyGeneral electionLawEconomicsPoliticsDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The focus of this research note is on the causes of imbalanced, if not indeed lopsided, election results that yield dominance within provincial legislatures. Two alternative areas of explanation are assessed here. The first relates to electoral system factors. Certainly, the single member plurality electoral system and its resulting disproportionality is a key part of the argument here. Yet this cannot be the whole story, not least because election results are not so lopsided in every province, nor indeed at the federal level. Thus what also will be assessed in this area are two other, related, aspects of elections: the total size of the assembly and the number of individual constituencies, as well as relevant party system factors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.330 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207