MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380149963 · doi:10.1177/13540688231170381

Accruing career capital: How party leaders with more political experience survive longer

2023· article· en· W4380149963 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clint Claessen

Bibliographic record

VenueParty Politics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsPoliticsLegislatureCapital (architecture)AttritionPolitical sciencePolitical capitalPolitical economyPublic administrationSociologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As some of the most experienced political actors, party leaders usually have extensive careers spanning multiple decades, competencies, and institutions. The literature on party leaders, however, has not yet incorporated the wealth of information that these careers have. Therefore, this article introduces career capital as a new continuous measure of political experience and hypothesizes that more career capital leads to longer tenure. In contrast to findings from previous studies, I show that career capital does contribute to party leaders’ survival in office in several analyses of party leader duration in Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland in the postwar period (1945–2023). In addition, because career capital is accumulated in three separate institutions, I examine the differences between these descriptively and show in the analysis that especially previous experience in legislative office is conducive for party leaders to remain longer in office. Lastly, the results indicate that the relationship between career capital and party leader duration is non-linear and subject to the effect of attrition, signifying that political experience acquired shortly before entering party leader office is more important for political survival.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueParty PoliticsSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207