THIRD PARTY FRAMES: EXAMINING MAJOR NEWSPAPERS’ FRAMES OF MINOR PARTIES IN THE 2000 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nader's 2000 presidential campaign potentially contribute to widespread belief of the wasted vote theory?There are modern examples of countries proving that more than two political choices can work.Turning to America's greatest ally, the United Kingdom, one finds a healthy selection of parties.As of June 2006, in the legislative branch's House of Commons, the Labour party had 353 seats, the Conservative party had 196, the Liberal Democrat party had 61 seats, the Scottish National party/Plaid Cymru party had nine, and other smaller parties had 16 (CIA Factbook, 2006).Canada has a working democracy with more than two dominating parties; as of Canada's last election in January 2006, the legislative branch's House of Commons was made up of 124 seats held by the Conservative party, 103 seats held by the Liberal party, 51 seats held by the Quebecois, and 29 held by the New Democratic party (CIA Factbook, 2006).The United Kingdom and Canada are not rare examples.There are a number of other democratic countries that provide voters with more than two political choices.India, one of the largest democracies, has over nineteen small regional parties holding seats.The same is true of Mexico, Japan, and Brazil, the list goes on; all are countries that can sustain more than two political parties.So, why is it that the most advanced country in the world is unable to support more than two political parties?Is it that so far the third party issues and candidates 1 have been off base with American voters?First, 1 There is a difference between an independent candidate, which is someone who runs for office without the aid of a political party, and a third party candidate, which is a someone running for office who was elected to do so by a political party.This thesis will refer to both types of candidates as third party or a minor party.This is done because they both face the same struggles and problems with the media and other issues addressed by this thesis.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 |
| 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".