Comparative Study of Electoral Systems, 1996-2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is the first module of an ongoing collaborative program of crossnational research among national election studies designed to advance the understanding of electoral behavior across polities. The data project, carried out in over 50 consolidated and emerging democracies, was coordinated by social scientists from around the world who cooperated to specify the research agenda, the study design, and the micro- and macro-level data that native teams of researchers collected within each polity. This collection currently comprises data from surveys conducted during 1996-2001 in Australia, Belarus, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, and the United States. The format includes a common questionnaire module and background (demographic) characteristics of respondents, coded to agreed-upon standards. These data have been merged into a single crossnational dataset with a companion supplementary weighted data file. Measures included in the study focus on three main issues. The first topic explored is the impact of electoral institutions, with questions about parliamentary versus presidential systems of government (levels of accountability, responsiveness), the electoral rules on casting/counting of votes (issues of fairness, impact of voting), and political parties (identification, ideological distinction). The second major issue covered is the nature of political and social cleavages and alignments explored by questions such as left-right issue orientation of respondents vs. political parties. Lastly, the collection covers the evaluation of democratic institutions and processes through measures such as efficacy in political parties, elected officials, and respondents' satisfaction with democracy. Additionally, data were collected on voter turnout, voter choice, and respondents' age, sex, education, employment, and income.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".