The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India and the United States. By Pradeep K. Chhibber and Ken Kollman. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2004. 272p. $50.00 cloth, $24.95 paper. The question of the role institutions play in party aggregation has tended to be dominated by discussions of the role and effects of different electoral systems. In a refreshing change from this preoccupation with electoral systems, Pradeep Chhibber and Ken Kollman turn our attention to the impact of federalism, or, more appropriately, the degree of centralization or devolution of power in governmental systems, on the fragmentation of party systems. Their focus is dynamic: They are interested in the formation of national party systems and in how party systems change over time with respect to their extent of nationalization and in relation to the migration of political authority to the center or from the center to states, provinces, or regions. Highly nationalized party systems are ones in which parties receive similar vote shares across different levels of vote aggregation: district, regional, and national. Conversely, in weakly nationalized party systems, parties are differentially competitive across levels.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it