MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979359905 · doi:10.1177/0192512110378657

The bases of political trust in six Asian societies: Institutional and cultural explanations compared

2011· article· en· W1979359905 on OpenAlexfundno aff
TIMOTHY KA-YING WONG, Po-san Wan, Hsin-Huang Michael Hsiao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Political Science Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersResearch Grants Council, University Grants CommitteeUniversity Grants CommitteeUniversity of Hong KongUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsPolityAuthoritarianismPoliticsBiology and political orientationWorld Values SurveyPolitical economyGovernment (linguistics)Political cultureEuropean Social SurveySociologyTraditionalismPolitical sciencePositive economicsSocial scienceEconomicsDemocracyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Political trust reflects people’s evaluative orientation toward the polity and is thus vital to regime stability. Based on data drawn from a cross-national social survey, this article examines the level of political trust in six Asian societies and the possible effects of a series of institutional and cultural factors on political trust. It finds that institutional factors, particularly the economic and political performance of government, are powerful determinants of political trust, whereas the effects of such cultural factors as post-materialism, traditionalism, and authoritarianism are either insignificant or weak. The superiority of the institutional approach over the cultural approach is reconfirmed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations169
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Political Science ReviewSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207