Geography of electoral systems and Iran's electoral system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electoral system is a set of election implementation methods that by receiving citizens' votes. The rule of elites elected by the people to manage public affairs makes it an objective reality. In different countries, there are different electoral systems that have advantages and disadvantages. Some countries have tried to use the merits of two types of electoral systems by using combined and consolidated methods. Since the legislature in general political units consists of two parliaments. Some of these units use majority system for the first parliament and proportional system for the second parliament. Some also use two methods at the same time for one parliament. In countries that only use the majority method, Majority structure adjustment (which is ignorant of minorities) Political parties have been put in place to include minority candidates. In Iran, the legislature consists of a parliament and the election is a quarter of the election, To fix the existing defect, In this article, it is suggested that by amending the constitution, a legislative system will be formed from the first and second parliaments, so that while using the philosophy of the bicameral system, the electoral system of the first parliament will be considered by the majority method and the electoral system of the second parliament will be considered by the proportional method. In case of The rule of the unicameral legislative system. The elections of the first parliament should be conducted in a combined manner of two majoritarian and proportional systems to reduce the existing shortcomings to the minimum possible and accelerate national unity and solidarity in the process of sustainable development of the country.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".