Measuring and assessing <i>subnational electoral</i> democracy: a new dataset for the Americas and India
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing how democracy varies within countries is paramount to the subnational turn in comparative politics. Despite recent contributions, we still lack a comparable measure of democracy for provinces inside countries. To overcome this limitation, I present the Index of Subnational Electoral Democracy (ISED), a measure that tracks the electoral dimension of democracy across the provinces of nine Latin American countries, the United States, Canada, and India for a period of roughly 40 years, making it the largest dataset on subnational regime outcomes to date. I then use the ISED to assess the democratic trajectories of Argentinian, Brazilian, Mexican, and Indian states, revealing that: 1) Indian provinces have been, on average, more democratic than their Latin American counterparts. 2) The relative position of provincial regimes within these countries has been remarkably stable over time. 3) Most subnational units in the Americas have had “low intensity” regimes. 4) Subnational regime hybridity has been the norm rather than the exception, and that 5) for the Latin American cases under consideration, democracy and development are positively connected at the local level. I conclude by outlining the ISED's research applications and reflecting on the implications of these five conclusions for future research on subnational democracy.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it