Democracy and the making of contentious policy: The role of democracy in the abolition of the death penalty, 1950–2010
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
Previous scholarship discussed the pivotal role of democracy in promoting human rights policies. However, prior work did not examine the distinct process of how democratic regimes adopt contentious policies with low public support. In focusing on the distinct policy-making process of contentious policy, this study examines how democracy can lead to a policy change with one contentious policy in particular: the abolition of the death penalty. The research compares dissimilar dynamics within gradual and immediate abolition processes with data from 164 countries between 1950 and 2010. The results of a competing risks event history model suggest that a country’s overall level of democracy, a specific democratic component such as the institutional separation of powers, democratic transition, and the presence of democratic legacy increase the likelihood of gradual abolition. However, democracy does not lead to immediate death abolition, except in cases where there is a sudden transition to democracy. The results have important implications for understanding the role of democracy in promoting contentious and unpopular policies.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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