MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082614797 · doi:10.1177/000312240607100302

Trends in Civic Association Activity in Four Democracies: The Special Case of Women in the United States

2006· article· en· W2082614797 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert Andersen, James E. Curtis, Edward G. Grabb

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Sociological Review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAssociation (psychology)State (computer science)Voluntary associationPolitical scienceDemographic economicsPhysical activityCivic engagementTest (biology)DemographyPsychologySociologyPoliticsMedicineLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assesses whether civic association activity has declined in four Western democracies: Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Influential accounts of decreasing civic engagement in the United States lead to the expectation of similar patterns in the other three nations. The authors test this hypothesis using data from time-use surveys of adult national samples for the mid-1960s to the late 1990s. One major finding is a clear decline in association activity in the United States, especially after 1975, but relative stability in the other three countries. Equally important are further results indicating that the American decline pertains only to women. Findings are sustained even after controlling for social background characteristics and four other activities (television watching, paid work, childcare, and physical activity). The analysis casts doubt on the theory that declining civic association activity in the United States reflects generational differences. Possible explanations for the reduced activity among American women, including lower levels of state support, are considered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations90
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Sociological ReviewSame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207