Breves notas sobre una cuestión controvertida: ¿Es posible acortar los plazos para la investidura del candidato a Presidente del Gobierno
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tras la Elecciones Generales del pasado 20 de noviembre de 2011, en las que el Partido Popular obtuvo una amplia mayoría absoluta, se planteó la posibilidad de adelantar los plazos legal y constitucionalmente previstos para la investidura del candidato a Presidente del Gobierno. El planteamiento, inédito en nuestra historia democrática, se sustentaba sobre la hipótesis de que el plazo habitual entre la celebración de la convocatoria electoral y la investidura del candidato, de en torno a un mes, podría conducir a un agravamiento de la inestabilidad económica por la situación de impasse político en la toma de decisiones. Mediante este artículo trataremos de demostrar que, efectivamente, tanto en el caso concreto de las pasadas elecciones generales, como en términos genéricos, sí es posible adelantar los plazos para dicha investidura.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".