The Strangulation and Resuscitation of Representative Democracy in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper posits that the global COVID-19 pandemic shock propelled the rational voters to the ballot box in 2020 presidential election to repudiate the 45th President of the United States (POTUS) for mishandling the pandemic and for propagating baseless conspiracy theories and disinformation, thus the resuscitation of representative democracy in the United States. We utilize a composite linear equation to derive the democracy strangulation coefficients and the democracy resuscitation coefficients to highlight the magnitude of the strangulation and the resuscitation. In addition, we derive and compute the democracy resuscitation index from which one can conclude that less than one percent of the net 7,052,770 winning votes barely resuscitated representative democracy in 2020. The strangulation of representative democracy is still ongoing because many aspiring candidates in the Republican Party, running for political offices at different levels, have strategically adopted the democracy strangulation playbook that the 45th President embedded in the Republican Party in order to achieve ochlocratic autocracy if they win and control the three coequal branches of government in 2025.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".