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
Survey research on political efficacy is longstanding. In a number of countries efficacy has been measured using batteries of negatively worded “agree-disagree” statements. In this paper, we investigate the measurement properties of the Canadian variant of this traditional battery and compare its performance with an alternative, positively worded, battery. The research is based on data gathered by a random half-sample experiment administered in the 2004 Political Support in Canada national panel survey. Analyses of these data provide no evidence that negatively framing the statements designed to tap political efficacy is problematic. Rather, it appears that students of political efficacy would have been worse off if they had spent the past several decades conducting analyses employing positively worded variants of the traditional statements. Perhaps most important, scholars have not been misled by acquiescence bias depressing efficacious responses to the traditional battery. These experimental results indicate that widespread political inefficacy in contemporary democracies is a fact, not an artifact.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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