The Roots of Civil Society: A Model of Voluntary Association Prevalence Applied to Data on Larger Contemporary Nations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on a literature review, a theory of voluntary association prevalence in nations of the world is proposed. Greater associational prevalence is hypothesized to result from certain societal background factors (greater population size, and more favorable historical/cultural/environmental interface), aspects of basic societal structure (more permissive political control, greater modernization, more developed non-associational organizational field, and greater ethno-religious heterogeneity), and societal mobilization factors (aggregate resource mobilization for associations, aggregate social cohesion). Archival data on larger contemporary nations strongly confirm most of the model independently for two separate time periods, the 1970s and early 1990s. The ethno-religious heterogeneity variable is not confirmed as significant. No suitable data were available to test aggregate social cohesion as part of the empirical model tested. The results have important policy implications for the roots of civil society, political pluralism, and participatory democracy, partially as manifestations of social capital in a society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.039 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".