MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416878351 · doi:10.4000/1596f

Does participation follow the same logic across different types of elections?

2025· article· en· W4416878351 on OpenAlex
Filip Kostelka, André Blais

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue européenne des sciences sociales · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutParliamentVoter turnoutPoliticsBaseline (sea)European unionNational election

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do political and institutional factors influence voter turnout in the same way in national and European Parliament (EP) elections? We hypothesise that these factors exert broadly similar but asymmetrical effects, due to differing baseline turnout levels. For the purposes of this study, we conducted time-series cross-sectional analyses of an original dataset covering 508 national lower house and EP elections held in European Union member states between 1975 and 2024. Our independent variables include election frequency, based on data from 2,487 major elections and referendums held in these countries. The results support our hypotheses. Political and institutional factors exert similar effects in both election types, but their magnitude varies as hypo­thesised. Factors that increase participation show stronger effects in EP elections, while those that reduce turnout are more pronounced in national contests. As a secondary finding, we show that these factors account neither for the long-term turnout gap between EP and national elections nor for its recent decline.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
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 head0.191
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.239 · 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