MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308920492 · doi:10.1017/s1049096522000750

Getting the Message Out: Why Mail-Delivered GOTV Interventions Succeed or Fail

2022· article· en· W4308920492 on OpenAlex
Alexandre Fortier-Chouinard, Marc André Bodet, François Gélineau, Justin Savoie, Mathieu Ouimet

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePS Political Science & Politics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)TurnoutPsychological interventionVictoryPolitical sciencePublic relationsGeneral electionVoter turnoutAdvertisingPsychologyComputer scienceBusinessVotingPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Mail-delivered get-out-the-vote (GOTV) field experiments have been found to increase voter turnout in some but not all contexts. We hypothesize that mail-delivered GOTV interventions are more successful in low-salience elections and test this in a systematic way for the first time. Relying on a systematic literature review and a meta-regression framework, we find that primary elections have a strong and significant positive impact on the success of mail-delivered GOTV interventions, whereas other commonly used measures of election salience, such as voter turnout, margin of victory, and a dummy for local elections, do not. These results highlight the possibility of fostering voter turnout using GOTV mail messages, especially in primary elections.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.319 · 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