Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the level of interpersonal and institutional trust among the selected countries as well as its change over time. The analysis shows that the average value of both interpersonal as well as institutional trust is highest in social democratic welfare regimes and is followed by liberal welfare regimes, with conservative welfare regime sclosing the ranking. However, when analyzing institutional trust, one reveals less fluctuation compared to the case of interpersonal trust. The analysis of the changes in interpersonal trust from 1981-2004 provides evidence that points to fact that there is no single pattern followed by all selected countries. In Australia, France, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland, the share of people who positively answered the trust question slightly declined over the period from 1981 – 1998. In Austria, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, the share of the trusting population increased over the analyzed period. Mixed results were found in the remaining countries: Belgium, Canada, Germany, Ireland, and Italy, where the trend of trust change shows some fluctuation. First, it increases over a short period followed by a sudden drop in trust levels. The same pattern was found when analyzing the fluctuation of institutional trust over the selected period. For those countries, where the question of confidence in public welfare institutions was asked in all waves of the survey, one can derive two groups: the first comprises those where a drop in confidence levels was found (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands), the second includes those where a slight increase in the share of trustors was present (Belgium, Sweden and the UK).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".