The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Party leaders in Germany are important political figures who preside over complex, multi-layered organisations. Parties are crucial players in running elections, organising parliaments and recruiting government personnel; their central role in the democratic process is constitutionally recognised in the German Basic Law. Yet, parties are also decisive in making cooperative federalism work. The German federal system is characterised by a strong degree of interlocking between the territorial levels. The German parties mirror this institutional setting through strong vertical integration inside their organisations. Elite negotiations within and across party lines are routine business in the second federal chamber and other intergovernmental arenas (Lehmbruch 2000; Renzsch 2000). In this context of an interlocked federal party democracy, the relative power of national party leaders strongly depends on vertical power balances within the party and his/her talent for political bargaining. Given this political context, it may come as less of a surprise to learn that the selection of party leaders in Germany has been and still is an elite affair which is most often determined behind closed doors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it