Les systèmes électoraux et les modes de scrutin, 3<sup>e</sup> édition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les systèmes électoraux et les modes de scrutin, 3eédition, Pierre Martin, Paris : Montchrestien, 2006, 156 pages. Dans la troisième édition de son ouvrage Les systèmes électoraux et les modes de scrutin, Pierre Martin avance deux idées principales. La première est que les modes de scrutin sont les produits des systèmes politiques “ et vice versa ” (p. 10). Par cette position, l'auteur rejette le déterminisme sous-jacent à certaines études sur les modes de scrutin qui tendent à “ surestimer leur effet ” (p. 135). Après tout, analyse-t-il, “ [l]eur influence sur la structuration des systèmes partisans et la répartition des votes des électeurs entre les partis est faible et absolument pas décisive. ” La deuxième idée, complémentaire de la précédente, soutient que “ les systèmes partisans résultent principalement de l'influence de la sociologie et de l'histoire ” (p. 113).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".