MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011839109 · doi:10.1093/pa/gsaa004

Boys’ Club or Good Ol’ Boys Club? Corruption and the Parliamentary Representation of Young and Old Men and Women

2020· article· en· W3011839109 on OpenAlex
Daniel Stockemer, Michael J. Wigginton, Aksel Sundström

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

VenueParliamentary Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changeRepresentation (politics)ClubBivariate analysisPoliticsInclusion (mineral)Capital (architecture)Gender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceDemographic economicsPsychologyEconomicsLawMedicineHistoryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Research on political representation has shown that corruption is not gender-neutral: it benefits the recruitment of men to political office more than it does women. Yet, it is unclear if all men or a specific type of men, elderly men, benefits the most from corrupt networks in terms of political presence. The ‘old boys’ network thesis’ would single out older men as the most likely beneficiaries of the homosocial capital gained through informal ties in corrupt settings. In this article, we test this thesis based on a dataset comprising 98 national parliaments. Through bivariate and multivariate analyses, we find that corruption tends to benefit the presence of men regardless of their age. We further conjecture that the inclusion of young male patrons into nepotistic and clientelistic networks could further explain why these networks of ‘gendered’ corruption have been so sticky over time.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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