MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040041045 · doi:10.4335/8.2.115-131(2010)

Postal Voting and Voter Turnout in Local Elections: Lessons from New Zealand and Australia

2010· article· en· W2040041045 on OpenAlex
Jacky Yaakov Zvulun

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsInternational Political Science Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutVoter turnoutVotingContext (archaeology)Political scienceRanked voting systemFirst-past-the-post votingDemographic economicsPublic administrationPolitical economyPoliticsGeographyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between postal voting and voter turnout in local elections needs to be investigated in the context of whether postal voting helps increase voter turnout in twenty-first century local elections. This assists to uplift the discourse about New Zealand and Australia local elections and its voter turnout. This article explores the method of postal voting history by looking at these two countries and analysing the method of political participation at the local level. It argues that postal voting no longer increases or decreases voter turnout in these countries. KEYWORDS: • postal voting • voter turnout • local elections • participation • New Zealand

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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