Research note: a comparison of free vote patterns in Westminster-style parliaments
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
The research note examines levels of intra-party cohesion during free voting on abortion, euthanasia and same-sex civil partnerships and marriage in the lower houses of four Westminster-style parliaments: Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand. In free vote circumstances, to what extent do political parties in these ‘most similar’ parliaments remain cohesive? Do political parties with similar ideological commitments exhibit similar levels of cohesiveness across the parliaments? The main finding of the article is that, although the level of cohesion within political parties varies depending upon the issue being considered, across the four parliaments, political parties with similar ideological commitments display broadly similar patterns of intra-party cohesion during free vote circumstances. Whilst ‘centre-left’ parties were the most cohesive on abortion and civil unions, but divided on euthanasia, ‘centre-right’ parties were consistently split on all three issues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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