Introduction: Parties, Electoral Systems and Political Theory
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
In recent years, several political theorists have restored and defended the central role played by political parties and partisanship in liberal democracies, highlighting the positive contribution that they can make to democratic politics. Little attention, in this growing body of literature, has been paid to the institutional framework in which political parties are located, and which may significantly shape the kind of party system in which individual parties and partisans operate. One of the key elements of this institutional framework is the electoral system. One question that deserves urgent attention is the following: how does electoral design affect parties and partisans' ability to make a positive contribution to democracy? While some of the existing literature on electoral systems does engage with the normative dimensions of electoral design, very few political theorists have addressed this question. The articles in this special issue aim to fill this gap in the literature. By re-examining some of the key debates in the normative literature on parties and partisanship through the lens of electoral design, they advance both bodies of work in an original way that will help to set a new research agenda in this field.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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