Election Pledges and their Enactment in Coalition Governments: A Comparative Analysis of Ireland
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
Abstract This study examines election pledges and their enactment in Ireland. Much previous research focused on countries where single‐party governments are the norm (the United Kingdom, Canada and Greece), and the presidential system of the United States with separation of powers. The present research draws on evidence from existing studies of pledge enactment in Ireland and the Netherlands. In addition, it adds new evidence on election pledges and their enactment in the most recent Irish government: the majority centre‐right coalition of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats, 2002–2007. By adding this new evidence, we are able to make stronger inferences on the impact of coalition governance on the types of pledges made and rates of pledge enactment. We also study the impact of prominent mechanisms of coalition governance – government agreements and ministerial portfolio allocations – on the likelihood of pledge enactment. In addition, in an effort to move beyond existing research, we present evidence on the extent to which election pledges are featured in media reports during the election campaign.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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