MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413997770 · doi:10.5509/2025984-art1

Perspective Valence Rules: Explaining Opposition Party Performance in Singapore’s 2025 General Elections

2025· article· en· W4413997770 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elvin Ong

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in Asia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)Political scienceValence (chemistry)Political economyEconomicsPhysicsLawPoliticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Singapore's 2025 general elections further consolidated a three-tiered hierarchy of opposition parties. The Worker's Party emerged as the strongest opposition party with the best results, winning 10 elected seats and 2 non- constituency seats for a total of 12 seats in the 99-seat Singapore legislature, with a vote share of 50.1 percent against the ruling People's Action Party in the constituencies that it contested. The Singapore Democratic Party and the Progress Singapore Party solidified their status as best accompanying bridesmaids. Seven other opposition parties were even further behind in their vote shares. Singapore voters' obsession with valence perceptions of opposition parties continues to explain why the Workers' Party remains so successful and why the other opposition parties continue to falter.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific AffairsSame topicSocioeconomic Development in AsiaFrench-language works237,207