Condorcet efficiency: Weighted Bucklin vs. weighted scoring and Borda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We ask how good Bucklin-related procedures can be at identifying Condorcet winners in ranked-ballot, single-winner elections. Bucklin procedures can have a wide range of weighting vectors and thresholds; one, for example, applies Borda weights, analogous to the Borda Count in weighted scoring elections. Using simulation, we estimate the maximum Condorcet efficiency of both weighted Bucklin and weighted scoring elections as the number of voters becomes very large; these measures depend of course on the underlying distribution of ballots. For the impartial anonymous culture distribution, weighted Bucklin exhibits higher Condorcet efficiency than weighted scoring when there are 3 candidates, but is not as good when there are 4 candidates, and about equal when there are 5 or 6. We also compare them under the impartial culture distribution (equally good), and under a one-dimensional spatial model (weighted Bucklin is usually better, sometimes much better).
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 | 0.052 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".