Constructing and Optimizing an Evaluation Model for the Implementation of Electronic Voting: An Indonesian Case Study
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
In 2024, Indonesia is poised to conduct a significant national event -the simultaneous general election for both presidential and local leadership positions.Historically, manual voting has been the method of choice since the inaugural election in 1955.However, as Indonesia prepares for future electoral exercises, the potential adoption of electronic voting systems is a consideration that merits comprehensive investigation, given the nation's expansive geographical spread and substantial population, which presents considerable challenges in executing any election.Despite several countries previously implementing electronic voting systems in their general elections, these cases have often culminated in failure, primarily due to concerns surrounding data security, public trust, and technological preparedness.This study, employing the structural equation modelling-partial least squares (SEM-PLS) approach, endeavors to evaluate the multifarious factors that could influence the successful deployment of an electronic voting system in Indonesia.The findings reveal that dimensions such as trust in government, technology, and electoral commissions; technological infrastructure; human resources; and constitutional readiness all significantly contribute to the potential success of electronic voting system implementation.These results are anticipated not only to inform the development and application of electronic voting in Indonesia, but also to provide a foundational platform for future research efforts dedicated to constructing a robust and effective electronic voting framework.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 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