MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104058021 · doi:10.1177/0010414001034010005

Coalition Policy in Parliamentary Democracies

2001· article· en· W2104058021 on OpenAlex

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

VenueComparative Political Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Linkage (software)Multi-party systemPosition (finance)Coalition governmentPolitical sciencePolitical economyPublic administrationGeneral electionComparative politicsDemocracyEconomicsPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates several hypotheses relating to the policy positions adopted by coalition governments in parliamentary democracies. Previous research, based on the comparative manifestos project's coding of party manifestos and coalition government declarations, has found that the linkage between the left-right positions of coalition governments and the positions of the parties that compose them is surprisingly weak. This investigation uses the same data to reveal a much closer correspondence between the two in West European systems. This linkage initially appeared to be weak because it is partially masked by additional influences on government policy emanating from the formateur party, the finance minister's party, the external support parties sustaining the government (if any), and the parliamentary center of gravity. In addition, government policy is affected by the position of the preceding government and shows a marked tendency to drift rightward with the passage of time since the last election.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.273
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.229 · 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