MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133920869 · doi:10.1177/1948550613519682

Risk Propensity Among Liberals and Conservatives

2014· article· en· W2133920869 on OpenAlex
Becky L. Choma, Yaniv Hanoch, Gordon Hodson, Michaela Gummerum

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Psychological and Personality Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservatismBiology and political orientationRisk perceptionPsychologySocial psychologyPoliticsPerceptionPolitical riskRecreationRisk-seekingFinancial riskActuarial scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Political conservatives, compared to liberals, are commonly thought to be more threat-sensitive and risk-averse. Using an American sample of community adults ( n = 397), we investigated when conservatives and liberals might be risk-taking or risk-averse. Participants completed measures of political orientation, and perceptions of risk, expected benefits (EB) of risk, and risk-propensity, across five domains (financial, recreational, ethical, social, and health). The relation between perceptions of risk and EB and risk-propensity differed as a function of political conservatism and varied across risk domains. For example, with regard to new business ventures, conservatives were generally willing to take risks unless perceived risk was high and expected benefit was low, whereas liberals were generally unwilling to take risks unless perceived risk was low and expected benefit was high. Implications for understanding risk-taking 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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.013
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.303 · 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