Liberalism and Postmaterialism in China: The Role of Social Class and Inequality
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
The postmaterialist thesis holds that postmaterialist and liberal values tend to be strongest in affluent locations and among people in higher socioeconomic positions. We demonstrate the degree to which China fails to conform to these expectations and seek to account for Chinese exceptionalism. We use multilevel models fitted to 2006 Chinese General Social Survey data to test the postmaterialist thesis. In general, we find expected associations for postmaterialism but not for liberalism. Indicators of individual-level status, including household income, middle/upper class status, urban residence, and majority ethnic group status are not associated with liberalism. Provincial-level affluence is not positively associated with either postmaterialism or liberalism, while income inequality is positively associated with liberalism. We conclude that in highly collectivist cultures like China's, economic development can have unexpected effects on value change. Growing inequality, which people in lower-status positions perceive as a threat, can promote liberalism, while people who benefit most from rising affluence and growing inequality may be more inclined to support traditional than liberal values.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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