The relationship of social dominance orientation and political efficacy to political participation of women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to examine the factors that influence women’s choices of political participation. In the first study 600 University students were asked their likelihood of engaging in 35 traditional and non-traditional political activities to create social change (the Political Activity Scale). Factor analysis identified 5 factors, one of which represented traditional and political activities, one of which represented non-traditional political activities and three of which represented a mix of traditional and non-traditional. In the second study, 80 University students read a social issue concerning poverty or the environment, and completed a revised political activity scale. They also completed the Social Dominance Orientation questionnaire (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth & Malle, 1994) and Craig and Maggiotto’s measure of political efficacy. Results indicated that women were more likely to participate in non-governmental organizations than were men. Tests of mediation demonstrated that the sex difference in non-governmental organization participation was partially explained by women’s lower levels of social dominance beliefs, relative to men, and by their perception of the non-traditional realm being more effective in creating social change (political efficacy).
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".