Polling and Democracy: Executive Summary of the AAPOR Task Force Report on Public Opinion and Leadership
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AAPOR was created by public research pioneers more than sixty years ago to encourage scientific research relating to American public opinion, under the conviction that the results of these scientific efforts should be available to the public itself and to the society’s leaders. This task force report has reviewed the current status of these goals. The report devotes major sections and an online appendix to a review of the philosophical and theoretical literature relating to public opinion and democracy, and to reviews of the empirical research on the relationship between public opinion and policymaking. The report also summarizes evidence relating to what leaders and the public think about this relationship and the role of public opinion polling. The task force recognizes that AAPOR has traditionally focused more on the process or methods of public opinion research than it has on the ways in which the resulting research data are used or should be used. At the same time, AAPOR is in a unique position to shift focus somewhat in the years ahead, and to pay more attention to the potential value of the use of public opinion data in decision-making and policymaking, and to the challenges that stand in the way of such use. This follows from the original purpose of the organization and the goals as stated in its recently enacted strategic plan.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it