Explaining Majoritarian Modification: The Politics of Electoral Reform in the United Kingdom and British Columbia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on recent research in the United Kingdom and the Canadian province of British Columbia, this article focuses on the politics of electoral reform:the strategic maneuvering by political elites to prevent and facilitate change. Through a comparative analysis of two highly majoritarian polities in which dominant executives have, since 1997, adopted contrasting reform trajectories, the article suggests that previous analyses of this topic have underemphasized the role of political agency and ideational change. In order to demonstrate this argument, the article develops and refines a process-based approach by embedding it within a framework that recognizes the interplay between context, agency, and structure. Not only does this approach deepen our understanding of executive veto points, majoritarian modification, and aversive constitutionalism, but it also sensitizes scholars to the role and power of political cultures and dominant ideologies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it