Political Messaging in a Post-Truth Era: An Examination of How Conspiratorial Beliefs Influenced Electoral Outcomes in Poland Between 2015-2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While this work bears only a single name, it was far from a singular effort.Indeed, almost no one can boast that they never relied on anyone, at any time, or for anything at all.Hence, it is important to always give credit where it is due, and recognize the contributions, no matter how small, of those who took the time, effort, or care in order to help others achieve their goals, and succeed where they otherwise would not.As such, I would like to recognize 3 and immortalize 3 those who lent me strength when I was weak, who fed me when I was hungry, and those who granted me the temerity to press forward when I had lost confidence in myself.This list is in no particular order, but this entire project, from its beginning to its end, would not have been possible without the tutelage of my thesis supervisor, Dr. Joan Debardeleben, Professor of political science for the European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies (EURUS) program at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario.Dr. Debardeleben knew exactly what I needed, when I needed it: whether that was encouragement, a new idea, or a new look at an old idea, I grew to count on her advice.She was excellent with turning around edited draft chapters in rapid succession, and overall served as the whetstone by which this project could be honed into something truly remarkable.For this, and for many other things 3 thank you.Thanks also goes to Dr. MikoCaj Cze[nik, the scholar in charge of administering the PNES/PGSW survey (Polish National Election Study / Polskie Generalne Studium Wyborcze), for kindly providing the as-of-yet unpublished 2015 When discussing conspiracy theories within the context of Poland, one is perhaps inevitably drawn to the emergence of one of the most culturally significant conspiratorial narratives formed in order to explain the tragic events of 10 April 2010.Colloquially referenced as the Smoleńsk disaster or the Smoleńsk catastrophe, the loss of Polish President Lech Kaczyński and 95 other influential figures in Poland as the result of a plane crash near the Russian town of Smoleńsk shocked the nation and paralyzed it with grief.The mysterious circumstances, the fact that the Russians were in charge of the investigation, and the emotionally-charged outcome of the event, ledto the formation of many conspiracy theories to explain how and why such a tragedy could occur.Theories ranged from the plausible to the absurd, and included accusations that the Russians deployed artificial fog to obscure the runway, or that a bomb had been planted onboard the aircraft.Indeed, it has been noted that the Smoleńsk catastrophe was considered a breaking point within popular discourse in Poland, and was followed by a significant change in Polish society whereupon conspiracy theories became en vogue once more.As such, the timeframe of this study is governed by the timing of the Smoleńsk disaster and the narratives formed around it, as well as other conspiratorial narratives in circulation during the 2015 and 2019 election-cycles.Aleksandra Cichocka et al., <The Collective Conspiracy Mentality in Poland= (New York: Oxford Alois Streicher, <Truth under Attack, or the Construction of Conspiratorial Discourses after the Smoleńsk Plane Crash,= in one-by-one by means of a single shot to the back of the head.The NKVD conducted several more of these operations in the surrounding regions, and more than 25,000 Polish citizens, not only including soldiers but also members of the clergy, the intelligentsia, and other representatives of the social elite in Poland, were dispatched in much the same manner.The horrific circumstances of the massacre notwithstanding, the propagandistic abuse that followed serves to illustrate why this particular event lives in such infamy within the Polish collective memory.The mass graves in Katyń were discovered by German soldiers in 1943, in the midst of their invasion of the Soviet Union.They announced their discovery to the international public, and by placing the blame on the Soviets, hoped to use the event to marshal sympathy for their campaign and deflect from their own crimes.However, neither the United States nor the United Kingdom were interested in pursuing an investigation into the matter; for them, it was far more important to maintain the alliance with Stalin in the fight against Hitler.In fact, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, after being confronted by the Prime Minister of the Polish government-in-exile and presented with evidence that over 15,000 Polish officers had been killed by the Soviets, was reported to have remarked, <If they are dead, there is nothing that will bring them back to life...We must beat Hitler, this is not the right time for bickering and accusations.=Nevertheless, during the war, two investigative commissions were formed, one by Nazi Germany, and one Streicher, 286.Ibid, 285.Ibid, 286.PiS,
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".