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 is a series (Comparative Politics) for students and teachers of political science that deals with contemporary issues in comparative government and politics. In the view of many electoral reformers, its subject, mixed‐member electoral systems, offers the best of both the traditional British single‐seat district system and proportional representation (PR) systems. The book seeks to evaluate why mixed‐member systems have recently appealed to many countries with diverse electoral histories, and how well expectations for these systems have been met. Consequently, each major country that has adopted a mixed system has two chapters, one on origins and one on consequences. The countries included are Germany, New Zealand, Italy, Israel, Japan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, Hungary, and Russia. In addition, there are also chapters on the prospects for a mixed‐member system being adopted in Britain and Canada, respectively. The material presented suggests that mixed‐member systems have been largely successful thus far; they appear to be more likely than most other electoral systems to generate two‐bloc party systems, without in the process reducing minor parties to insignificance, and in addition, are more likely than any other class of electoral system simultaneously to generate local accountability and a nationally oriented party system. Mixed‐member electoral systems have now joined majoritarian and proportional systems as basic options to be considered whenever electoral systems are designed or redesigned. This development represents a fundamental change in thinking about electoral systems around the world. The 25 chapters of the book, most of which were originally presented at a conference held in Newport Beach, California, in December 1998, are arranged in four parts: I. Placing Mixed‐Member Systems in the World of Electoral Systems (Chapters 1–2); II. Origins of Mixed‐Member Systems (Chapters 3–12); III. Consequences of Mixed‐Member Systems (Chapters 13–22); and IV. Prospects for Reform in Other Countries (Chapters 23–25); a short glossary is included.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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