MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098478814 · doi:10.1093/poq/nfh042

The Polls in the 2002 French Presidential Election: An Autopsy

2004· article· en· W2098478814 on OpenAlex
Claire Durand

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

VenuePublic Opinion Quarterly · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNewspaperPresidential systemPrime ministerPresidential electionPolitical scienceNational electionGeneral electionFront (military)Shock (circulatory)LawPoliticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first-round results of the 2002 French presidential election came as a shock to both French voters and people around the world. The French presidential election is a two-round system: it takes an absolute majority of the vote to be elected in the first round and, whenever no candidate is elected in the first round, a second round opposes the top two candidates of the first round two weeks later. In the months preceding the election, polls asked about not only voter intentions for the first round but also voter intentions for the second round, offering a choice between Jacques Chirac, the incumbent president, RPR (Rally for the Republic, right) and Lionel Jospin, incumbent prime minister, PS (Socialist Party), the obvious candidates for the second round. What happened on the first-round election day was not forecast by the polls: contrary to predictions, Jean-Marie Le Pen, FN (National Front, an extreme right-wing party), finished second with 16.9 percent of the vote and moved on to the second round. The newspaper Le Monde (2003) stated, “France is hurt, and many French people are humiliated.”

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.944

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.313 · 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