MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Are young candidates “sacrificial lambs”? Evidence from the 2012, 2017, and 2022 French legislative elections

2024· article· en· W4400535817 on OpenAlex

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectoral Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNOMINATELegislaturePoliticsPolitical scienceYoung adultDemographic economicsPolitical economyPsychologySociologyLawDevelopmental psychologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The underrepresentation of young adults is widespread in the parliaments of Western democracies. Yet evidence suggests that voters do not have a negative bias towards young candidates. In this article, we focus on another factor that may contribute to youth underrepresentation: the level of competitiveness in districts where political parties nominate young people. Using data on all candidates who ran for a major political party/coalition in the 2012, 2017, and 2022 French legislative elections, we attempt to determine whether young adults tend to be nominated in districts where they have little or no chance of winning. To do so, we use three different measures of district competitiveness. Our results show that young people – and especially young women – are more likely than others to be “sacrificial lambs”. Our analyses nevertheless indicate that men aged between 31 and 35 have become almost as competitive as older people in 2022.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.365
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.283 · 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