MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992661646 · doi:10.1017/s1049096512001503

THE BREAD AND PEACE MODEL: 2012 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION POSTMORTEM

2013· article· en· W1992661646 on OpenAlex
Douglas A. Hibbs

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresidential systemQuarter (Canadian coin)Presidential electionPolitical scienceContingent voteShock (circulatory)General electionEconomicsGroup voting ticketLawGeographyPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

President Obama received approximately 51.5% of the two-party vote in the 2012 election. The last Bread and Peace Model forecast of Obama's vote share, based on advance estimates of 2012:quarter 3 personal income posted on October 26, 2012, by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), was 46.6%—lower than the 47.5% forecast appearing in the October issue of PS , which was based on July 27, 2012, BEA data. The Bread and Peace Model therefore underpredicted Obama's vote by 4 to 5 percentage points, equivalent to around 2 model standard errors. The president's vote therefore benefited from a +2-sigma composite shock to Bread and Peace Model fundamentals. Figure 1 shows actual and predicted values for 2012 in perspective of incumbent vote shares at all presidential elections 1952–2012.

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.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.209 · 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