MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202415069

Devolution and electoral politics

2006· book· en· W202415069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dan Hough, C. Jeffrey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevolution (biology)PoliticsCompetition (biology)Political scienceElectoral geographyPublic administrationFederalismState (computer science)Political economyLawGeographySociologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A framework for analysis 1. An introduction to multi-level electoral competition - Charlie Jeffery and Dan Hough 2. Party organisation in multi-level contexts - Ingrid van Biezen and Jonathan Hopkin 3. Party systems in multi-level contexts - Lori Thorlaksson Case studies 4. Disconnected competition in Canada - Steven Wolinetz and Ken Carty 5. Multi-level party competition and co-ordination in Belgium - Lieven de Winter 6. Multi-level electoral competition: sub-state elections and party systems in Spain - Francesc Pallares and Michael Keating 7. Germany: an erosion of federal-Lander linkages? - Dan Hough and Charlie Jeffery 8. Regional elections in Italy: national tests or regional affirmation? - John Loughlin and Silvia Bolgherini 9. Austria: divergence within limits - Alan Siaroff and Amir Abedi Multi-level electoral competition in the UK 10. Devolution and electoral politics in Wales - Richard Wyn Jones and Roger Scully 11. Devolution and electoral politics in Scotland - Catherine Bromley 12. British political parties and devolution: sdapting to multi-level politics in Scotland and Wales - Jonathan Bradbury 13. Devolution and electoral politics: where does the UK fit in? - Charlie Jeffery and Dan Hough

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations210
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207