MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2338918996 · doi:10.1177/0268580916629622

Democracy, women’s rights, and public opinion in Tunisia

2016· article· en· W2338918996 on OpenAlex
Robert J. Brym, Robert Andersen

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Sociology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDemocracyGeopoliticsPoliticsPublic opinionSkepticismState (computer science)AmbivalenceSociologyWorld Values SurveyPolitical economyPolitical scienceDevelopment economicsLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Arab Spring demonstrated that public opinion can powerfully affect the region’s political life. Tunisia is particularly important in this regard; it is the Arab country where democracy has taken firmest root and is therefore of enormous geopolitical significance insofar as it can serve as a model for other countries in the region. This article assesses the state of Tunisian democracy using data from a 2015 survey of 1580 Tunisian adults. It finds that most of the country’s citizens are ambivalent or skeptical about the Arab Spring’s benefits, while support for freedom of speech has weakened in recent years. A multivariate analysis assesses the impact of socio-demographic factors and support for women’s rights (key to the entrenchment of democracy in Tunisia) on democratic attitudes. It is concluded that, while Tunisia’s political record to date provides grounds for cautiously forecasting that democracy will endure, its path is unlikely to be easy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.317 · 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