MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968457160 · doi:10.1080/13510347.2012.725392

Regime type and good governance in low and high income states: what is the empirical link?

2012· article· en· W1968457160 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDemocratization · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceDemocracyGood governanceEconomicsState (computer science)Developing countryLink (geometry)Development economicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This analysis looks at the link between regime type and good governance across four different levels of development – low income countries, medium-low income countries, medium-high income countries, and high income countries. Through pooled time series analysis of more than 170 countries with yearly or bi-yearly data from 1996 to 2009, I find that democracies are better governed than non-democracies. This relationship is robust across all regime types. Even at a low level of development, countries that elect their representatives in free and fair elections have a better regulatory framework and are more efficient and transparent. The practical implications of this finding are that a democratically governed state will most likely have a superior social and economic track record than a non-democracy.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.263 · 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