Bibliographic record
Abstract
Germany has a multiparty system in which coalition governments are the norm. In this paper we focus on the role that ‘pivotal’ parties have played in German government formation, both nationally and across the Lander. Traditionally the main pivotal party in the German party system was the Free Democratic Party (FDP). Since the early 1980s, however, the Green party has increasingly established itself an alternative to the FDP in this regard. From the 1961 West German election onwards no federal party has won an outright majority and every government has been a coalition. In the 1960s and 1970s, when there were only three parties in the Bundestag, the Free Democrats provided the hinge or the ‘pivot’ around which the two-dimensional German party system revolved, and it affected decisively the nature of the federal government and chancellor. This changed once the Greens established themselves as a viable coalition partner (so far at the national level only for the SPD, though). The FDP’s bargaining position was weakened as a result. In this paper we shall thus assess the hinge role of the FDP in the 1961 to 1981 time period and then the hinge role of each of the FDP and the Greens in the period since 1982. This will be done both federally and at the state-level. A five-point scale of “opportunity structure” (influence) will be used. Overall, we shall demonstrate how and where the Greens have replaced or at least equalled the FDP as the key hinge party in German politics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".