MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021134801 · doi:10.1089/elj.2020.0633

Cyber Elections in the Digital Age: Threats and Opportunities of Technology for Electoral Integrity

2020· article· en· W3021134801 on OpenAlexaff
Holly Ann Garnett, Toby S. James

Bibliographic record

VenueElection Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceDemocracyState (computer science)Political sciencePoliticsPolitical economyDemocratizationGovernment (linguistics)Power (physics)Law and economicsSociologyPublic administrationLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elections are essential for delivering democratic rule, in which ultimate power should reside in the citizens of a state. This introduction argues that the management and contestation of elections have now entered a qualitative new historical period because of the combined development of new technology and broader sociological developments. The era of cyber-elections is marked by: (a) the new ontological existence of the digital, (b) new flows of data and communication, (c) the rapid acceleration of pace in communications, (d) the commodification of electoral data, and (e) an expansion of actors involved in elections. These provide opportunities for state actors to incorporate technology into the electoral process to make democratic goals more realizable. But it also poses major threats to the running of elections as the activities of actors and potential mismanagement of the electoral process could undermine democratic ideals such as political equality and popular control of government. The article argues that this new era therefore requires proactive interventions into electoral law and the rewriting of international standards to keep pace with societal and technological change.

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 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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElection Law Journal Rules Politics and PolicySame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207