MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092812845 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511491047

Political Parties, Games and Redistribution

2001· book· en· W2092812845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rosa Mulè

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2001
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedistribution (election)PoliticsIdeologyPolitical scienceEconomic inequalityInequalityCohesion (chemistry)Political economyMiddle classPublic policyIncome distributionEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book explores the impact of political parties on income redistribution policy in liberal democracies. Rosa Mulé illustrates how public policy on inequality is influenced by strategic interactions among party leaders, rather than responses to social constituencies. Using game theory in detailed case studies of intraparty conflicts, Mulé evaluates her findings against a broad range of theories - political business cycle, median convergence, 'shrinking middle class' and demographic movements. She analyses trends in income inequality in selected OECD countries since the 1970s and provides in-depth examinations of Canada, Australia, Britain and the United States. Her methodology effectively blends sophisticated quantitative techniques with qualitative, analytic narratives. In evaluating both the impact of intraparty cohesion and ideology on redistributive policy, and trends in income inequality, this book brings a unique perspective to those interested in the study of public policy and political parties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207