MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171364861 · doi:10.1017/s1049096505055769

After the Vote: Evaluating a Prospective Forecasting Model of Presidential Elections

2005· article· en· W2171364861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brad Lockerbie

Bibliographic record

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespondentQuarter (Canadian coin)Presidential electionPolitical sciencePresidential systemVotingEconomicsPolitical economyHistoryLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are two components to my model of presidential election forecasting: Given the enormous amount of work on voting behavior that finds prospective assessments of the economy to be strongly related to vote choice (e.g., Abramowitz 1985; Kuklinski and West 1981; Lewis-Beck 1988; Lockerbie 1992), I make use of a prospective economic item from the Survey of Consumer Attitudes and Behavior that asks if the next year will be better, worse, or the same for the respondent. I take the average of the negative responses to this question from the first quarter of the election year as my economic measure. These data are available in late April.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.313 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePS Political Science & PoliticsSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207