Bibliographic record
Abstract
Internet voting: an international comparison Abstract This Master's thesis with the topic Internet Voting: International Comparison has the main goal of assessing whether and to what extent the generally known and stated advantages and risks of Internet voting are reflected in reality in countries that have already introduced this method. In other words, are these countries and their inhabitants struggling with problems such as transparency, secrecy and security of Internet elections, or on the contrary, has Internet voting simplified access to elections and increased voter turnout? To achieve the set goal, the method of case study is used primarily on the two largest representatives of this type of voting - Estonia and Switzerland. However, the thesis also marginally deals with other countries where the system has not yet fully taken off, or reasons for its termination have emerged. These include, for example, Canada, Australia, the Philippines and so on. The work is divided into several parts. In the first part, the author introduces the reader to the basic institutions and issues related to the topic of Internet voting. At the same time, he briefly discusses some of the mentioned countries that have at least partially introduced Internet voting. The second part outlines the advantages and disadvantages...
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".