Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every election, millions of Swedes go to vote to determine which party will govern for the coming four year period. For those not particularly interested in politics, televised debates help to gather information before the election. Some of the debates can be watched by up to almost a million people according to Swedish Public Service, which gives the debates power to shape the election result. Because of that it is interesting to research how the parties act during the debates, and if they act accoarding to any Political science theory, such as mainstream and challengerparty-theory. To execute this a quantitive method will be used. The thesis will focus on four debates, all shown on swedish television and having partyleaders as debaters. The result show that mainstreamparties, such as The Socialdemocrats and Moderaterna have acted accoarding to the way a mainstreamparty usually acts. The Left party and the greens have done the same, but for challengerparties. Debates are becoming more full with interruptions and less factual arguments, although it is not a straight line from each year to the next.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.180 | 0.121 |
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".