Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue, Forum authors return to some familiar Forum concerns about American politics, while introducing some new ones. Daniel Gitterman focuses on a hidden presidential power, the “power of the purchaser”. Andrew Taylor asks when Congress pushes back against presidential power and when it does not. Christopher Kimmel, Patrick Stewart, and William Schreckhise examine oral argument in the Supreme Court, to see what can rightfully be deduced from it. Terry Moe asks what we have learned the political role of the public bureaucracy and what we have not. Elizabeth Rigby looks at the federal struggle by way of state resistance to healthcare reform. Han Soo Lee inquires into the feedback effect of public opinion on presidential action. Jon Bond, Richard Fleisher, and Nathan Ilderton inquire into the real electoral contribution of the Tea Party. Robert Boatright compares the nature and fortunes of campaign finance reform in the United States and Canada. And Steven Schier and Todd Eberly seek to tease out an overarching pattern to American politics in our time. In book reviews, John Pitney takes issue with the partisan tilt of Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, It’s Even Worse Than It Looks , though he is not powerfully cheered by the more even-handed investigations of Robert Draper, Do Not Ask What Good We Do , while Nicol Rae applauds the proper partisan caution of Sean Trende, The Lost Majority .
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.461 | 0.325 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".