Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abolished by the military regime in 1961, local self-government in Korea was reestablished in 1991. Since 1995, local officials (governors, mayors and local council members), who were previously appointed by the central government, have been elected by the local populace. These institutional changes were expected to increase the autonomy of local government and transfer power from central to local governments.1 Contrary to this expectation, however, Korea's local elections have been characterized by an excessive focus on national concerns, not local ones. The opposition parties have been claiming that voters should punish the incumbent president's party in local elections and, so far, the voters seem to be complying with this request. As a result, the president's party has failed to achieve success in local elections. The debacle, in the 2006 local election was one reason the then president's party, Our Open Party, dissolved. To sum up, national issues have exerted a significant influence on both the process and the results of local elections. These influences have been detrimental to the incumbent president's party, resulting in its electoral failures. Election results, however, have not always been disastrous for the president's party. In the 1998 local elections, which were held during the first year of President Kim Dae Jung (Kim Taejung)'s term, the president's party fared pretty well. Even though it failed to win a majority of the popular vote, it succeeded in gaining a majority of the seats in the local council as well as executive office. On the other hand, in the 2002 local elections, which were held in the fifth year of President Kim Dae Jung (Kim Taejung) 's term, the president's party lost to the opposition parties in a landslide. These results suggest that in local elections, the context matters when it comes to the fortunes, or misfortunes, of the president's party. Two
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".