MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141784772 · doi:10.1017/s0008423907070199

The Politics of Electoral Systems

2007· article· en· W2141784772 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsElectoral reformDemocratizationElectoral politicsPoliticsElectoral systemElectoral geographyRelation (database)Political scienceWork (physics)Political economyVariety (cybernetics)SociologyPublic administrationDemocracyLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Politics of Electoral Systems , Michael Gallagher and Paul Mitchell, eds., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, pp. xxvi, 662. The Politics of Electoral Systems is the most recent and thorough work currently available on electoral systems. There is, of course, The Handbook of Electoral Choice (Josep M. Colomer, ed., London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) but this work focuses more specifically on the issue of electoral reform in relation to democratization. The Politics of Electoral Systems covers a wide variety of electoral systems from theoretical and empirical perspectives—and it does so excellently. This brand new work is destined to become no less than the bible of electoral systems.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · 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