Moral Values and Candidate Effects in Arkansas Elections, 2000-2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many political observers and scholars credit the Republican Party’s use of gay marriage bans and other wedge issues for boosting turnout among social conservatives thereby increasing the Republican vote totals in the 2004 general election. Using data from 2000, 2002 and 2004 election returns from the state of Arkansas we question this hypothesis and examine whether social conservatives are engaged in (1) isolated issue voting, (2) more permanent partisan voting or (3) making decisions based on candidate traits and appeal unique to President Bush. A comparison of the 2002 and 2004 results does show an increase in social conservative support for the GOP. However that support was also present in 2000, well before gay marriage became a major issue in the state. Increased social conservative support for the GOP is more contingent on the presence of George W. Bush on the ballot than any attempts to utilize a particular wedge issue. Our finding is confirmed by the inability of the Republican senatorial nominee Jim Holt to draw any additional support from this quarter even after centering his campaign on the “moral values” issue.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".