MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169385919 · doi:10.1093/pa/gsaa068

The Electoral Consequences of Scandals: A Meta-Analysis

2020· article· en· W3169385919 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Praino, Daniel Stockemer

Bibliographic record

VenueParliamentary Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutBallotPolitical sciencePolitical economyDemographic economicsEconomicsLawVotingPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As the number of scandals involving politicians in office rises worldwide, the number of studies dedicated to analysing these scandals and their consequences rises as well. In this article, we try to summarise this emerging literature focusing on quantitative studies that use scandal as an independent variable to model its influence on politicians’ electoral results. The analysis finds that scandal-ridden politicians tend to get fewer votes at the ballot box, are more likely to lose elections, and are less likely to win re-election. It also finds that the link between scandal and turnout is unclear; some models indicate that scandals depress turnout, while others report an increase in turnout.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.226 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParliamentary AffairsSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207