Opinions of Voters towards the Issue of Political Participation during the General Election of 2014: The Case of Kalasin, Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="Body">This research aims to study voters’ opinions within the province of Kalasin, Thailand with respect to the topic of political participation during the general election of 2014 and to conduct a comparative study on the collected opinions, which will be determined by individual factor and employ a quantitative analysis research method in the form of questionaries as a research tool. This study’s database is compiled from information collected from selected number of 397 voters domiciled within Kalasin. Statistics tools include, namely, Arithmetic Mean, T-Test, and One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). From the data analysis, the findings reveal that, with regard to the average means of voters’ opinions within the province of Kalasin with respect to the topic of political participation during the general election of 2014, the overall result is average ( = 3.40). Voters turnout ( = 3.88) is found to contain the highest level of opinions whilst a political related public assembly ( = 2.71) is found at the lowest ranking. Nevertheless, upon comparing between the average means of voters’ opinions within the province of Kalasin with respect to the topic of political participation during the general election of 2014 using individual factor assessment, it is discovered that Kalasin voters, as vary in sex, age, education background, occupation, and earned income, bare significant statistic differences when examining their opinions towards political participation during the general election of 2014. In contrast, Kalasin voters varying in marital status hold trivial statistic differences towards the concerned issue.</p>
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".