MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7016887517

現代先進国の新興政党:EU内外の政党の位置と有権者の認識

2023· other· ja· W7016887517 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueWaseda University Repository (Waseda University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageja
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Identification (biology)Product (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

内外の政党の位置と有権者の認識Over the last fifty years, the mainstream party families that have traditionally dominated politics in the West have experienced significant electoral setbacks.Social and Christian democrats, liberals, and conservatives have lost ground in most Western democracies.As mainstream parties decline, a variety of challenger parties spanning both ends of the political spectrum are on the rise across many advanced democracies.When looking at the electoral performance of challenger parties, Western Europe appears to be particularly affected by this phenomenon.Among established liberal democracies within the European Union (EU), the last decade has seen challenger parties more than double their vote shares compared to the 1970s.In contrast, challenger parties in equally long-standing liberal democracies outside the EU have increased their electoral returns by less than one-fourth over the same period.The thesis aims to explain why Western European countries are experiencing an unprecedented surge of challenger parties, while other leading liberal democracies including Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel have not witnessed such phenomenon.The thesis provides the following answers: the observed disparities in challenger party support across EU and non-EU democracies depend, essentially, on fundamental differences in the behavior of mainstream parties in the two contexts.Mainstream parties in the EU have a strong tendency to converge ideologically amid the process of European integration.Mainstream party convergence leaves voters unable to distinguish among traditional center-left and centerright options and, as a result, a growing number of them look for alternatives outside the political mainstream.On the contrary, this tendency towards ideological convergence does not apply to mainstream parties in non-EU democracies and therefore voters in these countries are less likely to turn to challenger parties.Chapter 2 reviews four main approaches in the literature on challenger party support: electoral institutions, socio-economic factors, value cleavages and spatial theories of party competition.It suggests that while challenger parties are likely penalized by restrictive electoral rules, they have nevertheless prospered in highly disproportional electoral environments.However, most Western European countries adopt proportional representation and therefore one must consider the potential effects of electoral systems when comparing the electoral strength of challenger parties across EU and non-EU democracies.As for the socio-economic factors and the specific cleavages that may facilitate the emergence and success of different types of parties, I suggest that the socio-economic correlates of challenger party success examined in the literature, including economic crises and rising immigration levels, are commonly found across most advanced democracies.Thus, these perspectives offer little explanation for the observed disparity in challenger party support between EU and non-EU countries.On the other hand, spatial theories of party competition (Downs, 1957; Kitschelt, 1995) have the advantage of offering a unified framework for understanding the challenger party phenomenon: mainstream party convergence opens a space on the ideological axis, providing challenger parties with the opportunity to step in and gain support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.159 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaseda University Repository (Waseda University)French-language works237,207