Follow the (ISSUE) Leader? The Leader-Led Nexus Revisited
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 Public opinion scholars have long debated the relationship between policy preferences, electoral candidates, and voters. While some argue that voters’ positions on the issues of the day affect the positions candidates take, others argue that relationship runs the other way. Gabriel Lenz’s 2012 book on the leader-led nexus provides an original design and provocative conclusions in a comparative context, though some have criticized the author’s findings (see, for instance, Matthews 2017). This article makes use of a multiwave voting advice application (VAA) panel dataset collected in the Canadian province of Quebec to test the generalizability of some of Lenz’s fundamental conclusions. Our results show that the influence of leaders on voters may be less important—or even reversed—where issues at stake are easy for voters to understand. The results offer evidence of issue priming and partisan influence; as well, the effect of leader influence on voters’ issue positions can vary by age group.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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