MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791562347 · doi:10.1177/1354068818761178

Friendly fire: Electoral discrimination and ethnic minority candidates

2018· article· en· W2791562347 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueParty Politics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPresumptionEthnic groupPolitical scienceNational electionIdeologyMinority rightsMinority groupSocial psychologyDemographic economicsPoliticsPsychologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discriminatory attitudes towards ethnic minorities are widespread, and a common presumption is that ethnic minority candidates suffer electorally as a result. However, some research has shown that little electoral discrimination occurs, because ethnic minority candidates tend to run for parties of the left, while voters with negative attitudes towards minorities are concentrated on the right. This study shows that when ethnic minority candidates do run for right-wing parties they suffer the brunt of electoral discrimination, while those on the left are insulated. To do so it leverages two methods: a candidate experiment and a difference-in-difference analysis of candidate demographic data and aggregate election results. An ideological stereotyping mechanism is also tested, but there is little evidence that right-wing voters reject ethnic minority candidates because they are viewed as left-leaning.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.319 · 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