Public opinion toward non-party campaign spending in the UK and Canada
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
There has been no shortage of literature that has focused on the role of money in politics. While the majority has focused squarely on the fundraising activities and spending preferences of parties and candidates, far less has paid attention to the spending habits of corporations, unions and interests that often register as non-parties. Yet these actors have gained prominence across general elections and referendum campaigns in the past decade owing to the increase in funds spent to influence election outcomes. Little is known about what the public thinks about the participation of these actors in campaigns. Yet public opinion toward non-party campaign spending is important to the degree that it effects perceptions of electoral integrity and might compel policy change. This paper uses new survey data collected from Canada and the UK to answer questions about how citizens perceive non-party campaign spending and what informs attitudes toward non-parties. We find that the public in both countries have mixed views on the participation of non-parties, but that there is some evidence that core concerns about electoral interiority and perceptions toward the role of money in politics drives opinion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 it