Politicians, the Public and Political Ethics: Worlds Apart
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Increased regulation of political ethics has not produced a growing satisfaction with the conduct of politics or the behaviour of politicians. We examine the proposition that regulation produces a convergence of attitudes and expectations between politicians and the public in the realm of political ethics. A distinction is drawn between political ethics conceived as a policy issue and as a process issue. Two models based on that distinction are derived and examined in the context of data drawn from Canada. We observe differences between politicians and the public on critical dimensions, differences that overpower partisan positions. Our conclusions support, with some reservations, the “worlds apart” model and caution against an overinvestment in ethics regulation as a means of restoring public faith in the political process. Résumé.Les citoyens ne sont pas plus satisfaits du processus politique ni du comportement des politiciens depuis que l'éthique politique est plus réglementée. Nous étudions la prémisse selon laquelle la réglementation produit, en ce qui a trait à l'éthique politique, une convergence des attitudes et des attentes entre les politiciens et l'électorat. Deux conceptions distinctes de l'éthique politique émergent de notre propos: celle qui renvoie aux politiques en tant que telles et celle qui renvoie au processus politique. Sur la base de cette distinction, nous dérivons ainsi deux modèles et les examinons dans le contexte de données recueillies au Canada. Nous observons entre les politiciens et l'électorat certaines différences dans des domaines essentiels et ces différences transcendent les lignes partisanes. Nos conclusions soutiennent, avec quelques réserves, le modèle des “mondes à part” et mettent en garde contre une surenchère de la réglementation de l'éthique pour restaurer la confiance de l'électorat envers le processus politique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".