MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957738020 · doi:10.24425/sts.2019.126143

The Impact of Social Capital on Political Participation of Social Media Users in Poland

2019· article· en· W2957738020 on OpenAlexaff
Kamil Filipek

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia Socjologiczne · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial capitalPoliticsSocial engagementSocial mediaSociologyPolitical scienceDemographic economicsSocial scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on participation of social media users has contributed to our understanding of modern citizenship, civic engagement, and contemporary public sphere. Despite a growing interest in participatory practices in social media little is known about the factors affecting political participation of social media users. Based on an online survey of 700 social media users in Poland, this study examines the relationship between social capital (defined at the individual level as a resource embedded in personal networks) and political participation. It has been established that there is a contradictory relationship between social capital and participatory activities of social media users. Apparently, differences between the resources that are only embedded in personal networks on the one hand, and those that can be mobilized for purposive actions on the other, matter when association between social capital and political participation is considered. Moreover, the presence of these resources significantly varies across different types of social relations (family, friends and acquaintances) of respondents engaged in different participatory actions.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.348 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia SocjologiczneSame topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207