MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1595793655

The relationship of social dominance orientation and political efficacy to political participation of women

2000· article· en· W1595793655 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cherie D. Werhun

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsBiology and political orientationDominance (genetics)Social dominance orientationOrientation (vector space)Political scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyDemocracyLawMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)Same topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207