Problematyka zmiany systemu wyborczego w demokracjach westminsterskich: Nowej Zelandii, Kanadzie i Wielkiej Brytanii. Perspektywa porównawcza
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article attempts to present the phased structure of electoral change in New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. Together the comparison of the successful alteration of the first past the post formula in 1993 in New Zealand, the wave of electoral reforms in Canada that started in 2004 in British Columbia and the British referendum on 5th May 2011, allow to distinguish 8 phases of electoral system revision: injustice of the first part the post formula suffered by one of two main parties, leading to alteration initiatives; mobilisation of public opinion; withdrawal of the reform’s initiators from the process; loss of control by the initiators over the electoral change process; creation of the appropriate body responsible for the selection of the optimal voting formula; indication by the chosen body of the optimal alternative electoral formula to the first past the post for- mula; referendum; growth of support for the first past the post system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".