MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996573198 · doi:10.3968/11392

Vote Buying: Examining the Manifestations, Motivations, and Effects of an Emerging Dimension of Election Rigging in Nigeria (2015-2019)

2019· article· en· W2996573198 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia Influence and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionDimension (graph theory)VotingOutcome (game theory)Spoilt votePolitical sciencePublic relationsAdvertisingPolitical economyBusinessEconomicsLawGroup voting ticketPoliticsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elections provide the platform for the electorate to choose their leaders in modern democracies. In Nigeria, they provide the opportunity for rich corrupt politicians to perpetrate acts of vote buying against both fellow contestants and the electorate. The introduction of Smart Card Readers (SCRs) technology and the permanent voter cards (PVCs) by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) made it difficult for politicians to manipulate election results. In other to game the system, politicians began relying increasingly on vote buying as a means of compromising and influencing the outcome of elections. Hence, vote buying is a fairly new method of election rigging. This paper, therefore, intends to explore the manifestations, motivations, and effects of vote buying on elections conducted between 2015 and 2019, as well as its implications for future elections in the country.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it