MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141681986 · doi:10.24124/c677/20151198

The Accuracy of Public Polls in Provincial Elections

2015· article· en· W2141681986 on OpenAlex
David Coletto, Bryan Breguet

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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollingVoter turnoutContrast (vision)TurnoutGeneral electionSample (material)Volatility (finance)Political scienceWork (physics)Test (biology)Affect (linguistics)EconometricsDemographic economicsVotingEconomicsPsychologyComputer scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study extends work on the accuracy of polls released in the final week of election campaigns in Canada, using data from the nine provincial elections held in Canada between 2011 and 2013 to identify what might affect the accuracy of those polls. Specifically, we attempt to empirically test two arguments - mainly that some methodologies are better than others in measuring voter preferences and that the nature of the election itself might make accurate forecasts more difficult. We find that absolute change in voter turnout was the strongest predictor of polling accuracy. In contrast, sample size, survey mode, or electoral volatility were statistically significant predictors of polling accuracy.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.278 · 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