MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7059534646

Session 1

2013· article· en· W7059534646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueClark Digital Commons (Clark University) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCampaign financeCommonwealthPoliticsSession (web analytics)IdeologyState (computer science)Public financePower (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Session 3: “Party and Group Perspectives on Deregulation” Iain McMenamin, “Dissensus Down Under: Changing Patterns of Political Finance Regulation in Australia” Lisa Young, “Election Finance Reform as Partisan Tactic: An early evaluation of the Conservative Party of Canada’s election finance reforms” Robert G. Boatright, “Campaign Finance Law and Functional Differentiation among Nonparty Organizations in the United States” \nDiscussant: Diana Dwyre\nABSTRACTS\nDissensus Down Under: Changing Patterns of Political Finance Regulation in Australia Iain McMenamin, Dublin City University, Ireland\nAustralia has a left-right party system. Both the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Liberal Party have access to pragmatic financing from the business sector. However, the Liberals also receive significant ideologically-motivated funding from Australian business that make up for the funds the ALP receive from labour unions. Over the last thirty years, Australian political finance in general, and the regulation of business funding in particular, has tracked the partisan composition of government. The introduction of disclosure and an ideological lurch towards the centre allowed the ALP to fundraise from business beginning in the 1990s. The Liberals later raised the threshold for disclosure, but now as the ALP has swept to power at the Commonwealth and State levels there is a movement towards a ban on corporate donations.\nElection Finance Reform as Partisan Tactic: An early evaluation of the Conservative Party of Canada’s election finance reforms Lisa Young, University of Calgary, Canada\nIn 2004, Canada entered into what appeared to be a bold experiment in election finance reform. Federal political parties were to be weaned off their dependence on corporate and union contributions and transitioned to a steady diet of public subsidies, provided annually on a per-vote basis. A change of government caused a reversal of this policy in 2011, leaving Canada with very strict contribution laws and a phasing out of public subsidies to parties. This paper argues that the Conservative Party of Canada, which initiated these reforms, did so at least in part in an effort to gain an additional electoral advantage over its rivals, which had not proved as adept at grassroots fundraising. Examining fundraising data for all three of the major Canadian political parties, this paper will offer an early evaluation of whether this political tactic is likely to succeed, and reflect on the interplay between electoral competitiveness and fundraising capacity for Canadian parties.\nCampaign Finance Law and Functional Differentiation among Nonparty Organizations in the United States Robert G. Boatright, Clark University, USA\nThe past two American elections have taken place in a legal context of relaxed restrictions on spending by nonparty groups, but with the limits imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 on contributions to and expenditures by political parties still in place. The result of this environment has been a movement by interest groups away from the issue-based differentiation that marked the largest advocacy groups of the 1990s to a form of functional differentiation, in which interest groups appeal to members not on the basis of what they stand for, but of what they can do. Although this change in the niches sought by groups has numerous parallels in literature on marketing and in literature on changes in political parties and political media, few analysts of American politics have discussed the consequences of this change for the role of interest groups in American political campaigns. In this paper I explore the nature of this differentiation and the consequences of it for party competition and partisan polarization.\nFurthermore, I contend that it is possible to measure this differentiation by looking at de facto coordination between groups, and between groups and parties, in choosing where to spend money. It is widely held that although explicit coordination between groups and political parties or candidates is prohibited, it is generally possible to coordinate in practice without any formal agreement to do so. By exploring differences in spending by groups in congressional campaigns, it is possible to identify instances where groups have sought to draw upon their own functional expertise to complement each other’s activities.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8890.768

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.161 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClark Digital Commons (Clark University)Same topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207