MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036003935 · doi:10.1017/s0008423901777906

A Simple Difference of Opinion? Religious Beliefs and Gender Gaps in Public Opinion in Canada

2001· article· en· W2036003935 on OpenAlex
Brenda O’Neill

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion and Society Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic opinionSet (abstract data type)Simple (philosophy)Focus (optics)Political scienceGender gapSocial psychologySociologyGender studiesPsychologyLawDemographic economicsEpistemologyPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article criticizes two aspects of the current research on Canadian gender gaps: first, the focus on issues in which women reveal more liberal attitudes than men at the expense of other issues; second, the implicit and unstated assumption that when women and men think alike on an issue, it is for very similar reasons. Examining data from the 1993 Canadian Election Study, the author argues that religious beliefs must be accorded a greater role in determining gender gaps, a conclusion drawn from extending analysis to a broader set of issues. In addition, the evidence suggests that even on questions on which women and men appear to agree, their reasons for holding these similar opinions sometimes differ.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.292 · 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