Who Wants to Redistribute? An Analysis of 14 Post‐Soviet Nations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate population groups' attitude regarding inequality reduction in post‐Soviet transitional countries of the Baltic, Central Asia and the Caucasus, as well as the Slavic countries and Moldova. Empirical evidence presented in this article demonstrates that despite skyrocketing inequality, erosion of social provisions and efforts to introduce an individualistic market economy ideology during the last 15 years, overall support for redistribution and welfare state efforts to counterbalance rising inequality remained strongly legitimized among citizens in all post‐Soviet countries. Nevertheless, there are differences between population groups in attitude: the older, the less educated, the poor and women express more support for redistribution; while the younger, the better educated, the rich and men tend to not support redistribution. Populations in transitional countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia that face higher inequality and less effective redistribution policies expressed a strong desire for more redistribution and more active social welfare policies.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it