MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972304885 · doi:10.1037/a0015650

Conceptualizing political orientation in Canadian political candidates: A tale of two (correlated) dimensions.

2010· article· en· W1972304885 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Becky L. Choma, Michael C. Ashton, Carolyn L. Hafer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsBiology and political orientationPsychologyOrientation (vector space)Social psychologyPolitical scienceLawGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'orientation politique est souvent operationnalisee comme un continuum unidimensionnel gauche-droite. Cependant, des recherches suggerent que cette conceptualisation pourrait etre trop simpliste. La presente etude visait a examiner la structure de l'orientation politique aupres d'un echantillon de 190 politiciens qui etaient candidats aux elections federales canadiennes de 2006. Les participants ont complete des mesures d'attitudes envers differentes questions politiques (questions de conservatisme social, questions de competition economique), croyances ideologiques (autoritarisme de droite, orientation a dominance sociale) et valeurs abstraites (conservation, autopromotion) comme indicateurs d'orientation politique. Des analyses factorielles confirma-toires ont demontre que la structure de l'orientation politique etait le mieux expliquee par deux dimensions moderement correlees: gauche-droite sociale et gauche-droite economique. Les differences entre les partis politiques en ce qui a trait aux indicateurs d'orientation politique sont aussi discutees.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportementSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207