MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968713391 · doi:10.1080/00344893.2019.1652202

Why Do Women Vote Radical Right? Benevolent Sexism, Representation and Inclusion in Four Countries

2019· article· en· W2968713391 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueRepresentation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsMainstreamRadical rightInclusion (mineral)Context (archaeology)Political scienceRepresentation (politics)Social psychologyGender studiesPsychologyDemographic economicsPoliticsSociologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Examines how gender, benevolent sexism, and the representational context shapes support for radical right parties (RRPs) in four countries: Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and Norway. Employing the 8th wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), we find benevolent sexism is a key component of RRP support for men but not women. For men, it appears that sexist attitudes are at least partly a function of a more general orientation to outgroups. We also find that gender moderates the effects of immigration anxiety and authoritarian attitudes on an RRP vote. Finally, there is some evidence that the gender gap is largest where mainstream parties isolate an RRP and the gap is partly a function of the inability of RRPs to attract women with less progressive views on gender equality.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.306 · 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