MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031164520 · doi:10.1177/0043820020920557

Populism and Social Policy: A Challenge to Neoliberalism, or a Complement to It?

2020· article· en· W3031164520 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Chandler

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Affairs · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPopulism, Right-Wing Movements
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulismRhetoricNarrativePower (physics)Political economyFace (sociological concept)Political scienceRedistribution (election)Neoliberalism (international relations)Social policyPublic relationsSociologyLaw and economicsSocial sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do populists pursue distinct kinds of policies, and if so, how successful are those policies? Populist rhetoric often invokes themes of redistribution insofar as leaders claim that power and resources need to be restored to “the people.” As a result, populists tend to offer a very broad view of social policy that emphasizes security, order, rewards, and punishments. Populists’ narratives may be simple, but once in office, they may face complex problems that call for more sophisticated policy solutions. This study examines whether populist policies fit the messages they deliver to their target voters, and aims to contribute to the development of a methodology for determining that relationship in specific empirical cases. I focus on the case of Russia, which enacted a major change in its old‐age pension system in 2018 under the leadership of President Vladimir Putin.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.074
Scholarly communication0.0130.018
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld AffairsSame topicPopulism, Right-Wing MovementsFrench-language works237,207