MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205809947 · doi:10.5860/choice.43-3039

Political marketing: a comparative perspective

2006· article· en· W4205809947 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsPerspective (graphical)MarketingPolitical scienceHistoryBusinessArtLawVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Political marketing has become a global phenomenon as parties try to copy the market-oriented approach employed by Tony Blair to win power for New Labour in 1997. Increasingly voters choose parties like consumers choose products, and this study looks at how some political parties, such as Sinn Fein, have been able to capitalise on this to gain support.<br/><br/>It raises fresh perspectives on the more established political marketing practices in the UK and US, such as how to incorporate political leadership within the market-oriented framework and the democratic implications when faced with the actually business of governing.<br/><br/>This book also highlights how the market-oriented party approach has spread around the world, including Europe and the new democracies of Brazil and Peru. The chapters, in demonstrating this convergence in practices, also question whether this strategy is appropriate for political systems based on proportional representation and coalition governments such as those in Austria, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, and devolved systems in Northern Ireland and Scotland. The collection also introduces the debate on whether such practices enhance or undermine democracy, raising important questions on the future of political marketing.<br/><br/>This book should become an established essential text for students and academics of political science and marketing.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations66
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChoice Reviews OnlineSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207