MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201988346 · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjz828f.8

A MINORITY DEMOCRACY

2019· book-chapter· en· W3201988346 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthem Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oligarchy and Clientelism Party-cracy Minority Governments Competitive Autonomies The Catalan Roller Coaster The Basque Pendulum A Blocked Constitution There are different levels of quality of democracy. The current democracies in Canada or Sweden, for example, are of higher quality in terms of civil rights, rule of law, citizens’ participation and government effectiveness than those in, say, Paraguay or Romania. Likewise, there are also different levels of atrocity of dictatorships, as we can see if we compare, for example, totalitarian North Korea or Saudi Arabia with the softer regimes of Malaysia or Morocco. There are democracies and democracies, as there are dictatorships and dictatorships. From this perspective, the current political regime in Spain is a democracy but not of very high quality— rather low in some important respects. Spain is not exceptional regarding the disappointment of democratic promises. All democracies based on elections by political parties in large states have limitations and produce frustrations. In general, the establishment of the modern model of representative democracy implied some loss in comparison with the classical model of direct democracy in small city-republics. But precisely, how different democratic regimes deal with the shortcomings of the modern representative formula is what gives them different levels of quality. Let us briefly recall some basic concepts to clarify this. In direct democracies— such as ancient Athens, Renaissance Florence or the current Swiss communes, for example— the people, first, vote on policy in open assemblies and second, they select delegates to implement their decisions. The delegates are not representatives of the people but only mandataries to execute the assembly's imperative instructions. They render account of their job and could be sanctioned for their performance. In contrast, in modern democratic states the people do not make binding decisions. The voters, first, elect representatives without any imperative mandate on public policy and, second, the elected representatives choose policy with vast discretional latitude and without legally binding pledges or electoral promises. The representatives make decisions on behalf of the people. They are not revocable and cannot be recalled on the basis of their policy performance. The only mechanism for accountability of the elected representatives is the following election, which has to deal with both past performances and new future promises at the same time.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthem Press eBooksSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207