MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2196409163 · doi:10.1089/elj.2015.0345

The Adoption of Anti-Defection Laws in Parliamentary Democracies

2016· article· en· W2196409163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Csaba Nikolenyi

Bibliographic record

VenueElection Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislaturePolitical sciencePoliticsGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)General electionPolitical economyLawLaw and economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past couple of decades a number of new democracies have adopted anti-defection laws that penalize individual parliamentary deputies for changing their partisan affiliation during the inter-election period. The adoption of these measures seems reasonable in new democracies, where political parties are still weak and are not yet “parliamentary fit” (Sartori 1997), which is an important prerequisite for the proper functioning of parliamentary government. However, it is much more puzzling to find that alone among the more established democracies, India and Israel have also chosen to do so. In this article, we argue that anti-defection laws are adopted in rare circumstances in established democracies: freely elected legislators do not easily choose to give up their freedom of movement in the legislature. In order to uncover the conditions that may lead to such reforms we compare the experience of three democracies: India and Israel, where such reforms were successfully adopted, as well as Canada, where repeated attempts at such reforms have failed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
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 score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.312 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElection Law Journal Rules Politics and PolicySame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207