Evaluations, Referents of Support, and Political Action in New Democracies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussions of political participation originally centered on cultural explanation, thus emphasizing the dynamics between cognitive and affective orientations of mass populations toward their polities and the role of the self in the political system (Gamson 1968; Easton 1965; Almond and Verba 1963; Dahl 1961; Campbell et al. 1960). Positive evaluations induce involvement, while negative attitudes hinder it. Despite “institutional” criticism, contemporary studies provide ample evidence for the validity of cultural explanations in comprehending protest behavior in post-industrial societies (Dalton 2001; Norris 1999; Klingemann 1999; Inglehart 1997; Jennings 1990). To understand involvement in elite-challenging activities in new democracies, however, the cultural premises should be re-specified. Not only the types, but also the referents of support, have had differentiated effects in citizens’ propensity to participate during the third wave of democratization. Specifically, I claim that support for the new political institutions positively affected participation, while assessments of incumbent authorities negatively impacted engagement after regime change in Latin American and Eastern and Central European nations. Probit estimations using data from the 1995-2001 World Values Surveys support this proposition while they also suggest that participation was mainly influenced by the strength of their orientations toward democracy at similar levels of governmental discontent between two individuals.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".