MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947104316 · doi:10.1080/00323187.2019.1601021

Assessing the influence of ideologies on vote choice in an ethnoterritorial context: the case of Taiwan

2018· article· en· W2947104316 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

VenuePolitical Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyContext (archaeology)Social psychologyPsychologySociologyPolitical sciencePoliticsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on vote choice in Taiwan has regularly identified ethnoterritorial ideology – preference for independence or unification with China – as the main ideological cleavage in Taiwanese party politics. This paper contributes to the literature by investigating the effects of two more ideological dimensions on vote choice: social and economic. Based on data from the Taiwan Election and Democratization Study (TEDS) for the 2016 presidential and legislative elections, our findings demonstrate that social and (to a lesser degree) economic ideologies do have significant influence on vote choice, though ethnoterritorial ideology remains the primary ideological determinant. Findings were similar for the presidential and legislative elections. On this basis, we make a case for increased attention to social and economic ideologies in future research on vote choice in Taiwan, and we encourage scholars to study Taiwan in comparative perspective with other societies that are divided along ethnoterritorial lines.

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)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.374 · 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