Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper seeks to understand what political leaders do. It asks four specific questions: (1) what do leaders in the political realm do, in terms of both purposes and techniques for pursuing those purposes?; (2) what variation is there in what leaders do?; (3) what factors underpin this variation?; (4) what are the consequences of such variation?The paper pursues answers to these questions through two stages. It begins by developing a theoretical framework for understanding the techniques that leaders may employ, drawing on a wide survey of writings on political leadership in the fields of policy, leadership, and presidency studies to present a classification of leadership techniques. It then uses empirical analysis to explore the possibility of making empirical generalizations regarding these leadership techniques. We focus on three case studies of policy-making in rich Anglophone countries, looking at (1) the politics of electoral reform in New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom; (2) economic policy-making in the United States under Richard Nixon; and (3) the search for peace in Northern Ireland, particularly in the 1980s.On these bases, we highlight three factors that appear in particular to shape variation in the nature of political leadership: the nature of the policy area; the offices that leaders occupy; and the individual character of leaders themselves. We identify two types of leadership: moral and instrumental. We argue that the greatest success in leadership can be achieved by combining these, but that such combination is difficult: none of the leaders we study do it entirely successfully.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".