Election Forecasting Using Macroeconomic and Social Indicators via Machine Learning
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
A comparative analysis of machine learning models is executed for the forecasting of incumbent party losses during federal elections in democratic countries. A proprietary dataset that encompasses a wide array of potential economic and social factors affecting election outcomes is compiled, and the most significant factors are identified and evaluated. A myriad of the most popular machine learning models for supervised learning is applied to the dataset, utilizing them as classifiers to predict whether the incumbent party stays in power during federal elections for eleven of the world’s most populous and democratic countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, India, and New Zealand. The results show that the most significant factors for election outcomes are inflation growth rate, unemployment growth rate, and voter turnout growth rate. Multilayer perceptron produces the most accurate classifications. Additionally, Gaussian models such as Gaussian process classifier and Gaussian naive Bayes have the poorest classification accuracy.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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