MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004688978 · doi:10.1080/14662040701516870

Electoral Systems and Substantive Representation of Women: A Comparison of Australia, Canada and New Zealand

2007· article· en· W2004688978 on OpenAlex
Manon Tremblay

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

VenueCommonwealth and Comparative Politics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian National University
KeywordsRepresentation (politics)VotingPerceptionPoliticsElectoral systemPolitical scienceProportional representationSocial psychologyPsychologyDemocracyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The primary objective of this study is to assess the psychological effects of the voting systems on the substantive representation of women. The central hypothesis is that voting systems influence the perception that female politicians have of their role as political representatives of women and, in particular, that women elected by PR systems are more likely than those elected by majority systems to feel they have a responsibility to represent women. Interviews conducted with 110 female MPs in Australia, Canada and New Zealand between 2001 and 2004–5 do not support this assumption. The conclusion explores how the concept of surrogate representation may improve our understanding of the psychological effects of the voting system on the substantive representation of women.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.245 · 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