MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944066376 · doi:10.1111/ssqu.12662

When Partisan Identification and Economic Evaluations Conflict: A Closer Look at Conflicted Partisans in the United States

2019· article· en· W2944066376 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

VenueSocial Science Quarterly · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)VotingTurnoutPolitical scienceRecessionVoting behaviorState (computer science)Differential (mechanical device)Social psychologyPolitical economyDemographic economicsEconomicsPsychologyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Most partisan voters in the United States hold biased perceptions of the state of the national economy. Comparatively little is known, however, about voters who hold economic evaluations that conflict with their partisan identification. Methods I use the American National Election Studies from 1980 to 2016 to conduct over time regression analyses of the identity and behavior of conflicted partisans. Results The share of conflicted partisans is substantial, especially during economic recessions. Conflict is associated with weak levels of party identification, higher levels of nonvoting, and lower levels of in‐party voting. Conclusion A closer look at conflicted partisans suggests that partisan bias in economic judgments fluctuates over time and varies among party affiliates. The study further shows that conflict between party affiliation and economic judgments is associated with differential voting and turnout patterns among party identifiers.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.332 · 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