Candidate Gender, Behavioral Style, and Willingness to Vote
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
This article explores the impact that women’s and men’s nonverbal forms of communication have on voters’ evaluations of political figures. The results indicate that nonverbal cues employed by female and male politicians during political speeches trigger both leadership and gender stereotypes. Furthermore, these behaviors produce different reactions among male and female viewers. Our results indicate that while female politicians are not generally stereotyped as being less agentic (strong leaders, aggressive, tough, confident, or decisive) than men, when they are observed using agonic (assertive, expressive, or choppy) hand movements, their assessments drop. Men demonstrating the same behavior see their leadership assessments improve. Nonverbal cues have little effect on gender-based stereotypes linked to communal qualities such as being caring, sociable, emotional, sensitive, and family oriented, but do impact willingness to vote for a candidate. Women are more likely to receive votes particularly from male respondents if they are calm and contained. Male candidates are more likely to be supported by both women and men when they communicate using assertive nonverbal behaviors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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