MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052723621 · doi:10.1080/13689880500178724

Saving the Pound or Voting for Europe? Expectations for Referendums on the Constitution and the Euro

2005· article· en· W2052723621 on OpenAlexaff
Lawrence LeDuc

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferendumConstitutionVotingDemocracyPolitical sciencePound (networking)PoliticsDirect democracyAccessionEuropean unionTurnoutBrexitLawPolitical economyEconomicsEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tony Blair's U‐turn in April 2004 on the issue of holding a referendum on the new EU constitution means that British voters can anticipate the prospect of at least two future referendums on major European issues – the vote on the constitution taking its place in the electoral queue with the long promised referendum on the Euro.1 1. The constitution was signed by all 25 heads of government in Rome on 29 October 2004. The text of the document may be found at http://europa.eu.int/constitution/constitution_en.htm. Together with Britain, at least eight other EU member countries, including Spain, France and The Netherlands, will also hold (or have already held) referendums on the new constitution.2 2. The Spanish referendum took place on 20 February 2005. The vote was 77% YES, 17% NO. Six percent of the ballots were blank or spoiled. Turnout was 42%. Thus, the two future British referendums, along with a number of similar votes in other countries, will provide students of electoral behavior with unparalleled new opportunities to assess the role which referendums are increasingly coming to play in modern democratic political life.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and PartiesSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207