Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Politics of Direct Democracy: Referendums in Global Perspective., Lawrence LeDuc., Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. 2003, pp. 214. The 1980s marked a watershed in the evolution of liberal democracy. On the global front the principles of liberal democracy were successfully used as battering rams to demolish the walls erected by its powerful Cold War rival—socialism. Our side declared victory and the end of ideological conflict. And yet in its struggle with socialism liberal democracy planted the seeds for its own transformation—it was hoist with its own petard. A new consensus emerged. Our elections were also a sham, parties provided little or no meaningful choice, and legislators were unrepresentative, unresponsive and unaccountable. On major constitutional and moral issues there was gridlock. From the left came calls for “people power” and more inclusive and empowering institutions. From the right came calls for privatizing the State and reducing the autonomy of elected officials and the “special interests” who controlled it. Enter the referendum as a way of addressing this “democratic deficit.” Why not let the people decide?
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".