Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

In the study's Dutch election analysis, lower voter turnout was associated with higher observed electoral polarization, with more extreme parties benefiting disproportionately.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 22184 · qualifiers {"location":"Municipality-level data from Dutch general elections.","time_range":"Analysis reported in the 2026 Public Choice study."}

a comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 84 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 55, shared 28. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Elections · 1efd24fe Society · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

2 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 1 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:75adf7aa-625a-891e-9c37-32f4882ea108

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The study directly reports disproportionate benefits for extreme parties under lower turnout and an association between lower turnout and higher polarization. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The quoted passage directly reports lower turnout being associated with higher electoral polarization and disproportionate benefits for more extreme parties.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Hide calculation

0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM · 2 sources, 1 independent lineage

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:3e2ece9d860171184e9bef9ee88fda5be08d53bd4c6a76371d02589b6811e265

Last changed at entry seq 25641; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

LinkWorkingWeightCounted as
577ca571 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DATASET_RESULT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 1.800000
fdcb7d39 support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept 577ca571)

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 1.800000 (the counted weights) = 1.800000 → probability 0.8581

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.7790 to 0.9121, a spread of 0.1331.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
fd2acc35577ca571

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

2 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedyes577ca571, fdcb7d39

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The study directly reports disproportionate benefits for extreme parties under lower turnout and an association between lower turnout and higher polarization. 690bfa61

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. fd2acc35

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:75adf7aa-625a-891e-9c37-32f4882ea108

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
22184APPENDED
22185ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
22196LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
24581TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "75adf7aa-625a-891e-9c37-32f4882ea108",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "a62a7d87-c981-8a58-9f86-17a9577ca571",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "9549ca6e-39af-875f-91e6-7bec690bfa61",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DATASET_RESULT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "kept": "a62a7d87-c981-8a58-9f86-17a9577ca571",
      "link": "be208c52-1fe1-8691-95cf-940afdcb7d39",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "9d6038fa-6397-87f3-936b-8e45fd2acc35",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1331",
    "permissive": "0.9121",
    "conservative": "0.7790"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "MEDIUM",
  "claim_type": "COMPARATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8581",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "1.800000",
  "snapshot_seq": 25641,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "a62a7d87-c981-8a58-9f86-17a9577ca571",
        "be208c52-1fe1-8691-95cf-940afdcb7d39"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "1.800000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}