HOW THE FRENCH SUPREME COURT ANNULLED THE FIRST FRENCH LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On February 15th, 2013, the French Supreme Court voided the election results for a newly created legislative seat in the French Parliament representing French nationals living in the United States and Canada. This decision was the result of a lawsuit filed in June 2012, challenging the election results on the basis of significant operational concerns and difficulties encountered by voters. Although a number of novel arguments involving internet and mail-in voting procedures were before the court, the decision to annul those results and declare the legislator ineligible for a year was strictly based on campaign finance rules violation grounds. Although the campaign finance jurisprudence was significantly clarified by this decision, a major uncertainty still remains about future overseas elections where the potential for voting operation failures, such as the internet vote, remain of significant concern. BOCCONI LEGAL PAPERS This paper can be downloaded without charge from Bocconi Legal Papers http://bocconilegalpapers.org
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".