MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124080545 · doi:10.1111/gove.12573

Exploring political personalities: The <scp>micro‐foundation</scp> of local policy innovation in China

2021· article· en· W3124080545 on OpenAlexafffund
Orion A. Lewis, Jessica C. Teets, Reza Hasmath

Bibliographic record

VenueGovernance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaChiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange
KeywordsPersonality psychologyChinaPoliticsPersonalityFoundation (evidence)EconomicsPolitical scienceBusinessMarketingPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article argues that policymakers' individual attributes influence their willingness to engage in policy innovation, and that this influence is responsive to, but not determined by, changes in the institutional structure. We derive these findings by employing principal component analysis of original data from surveys of local policymakers in China, to inductively locate different personalities. We find statistically significant personalities that influence a willingness to innovate, and that this influence is responsive to changes such as heightened risk. In addition to parsing the influence of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations on policy innovation, we further find that the traditional risk‐acceptant policy‐entrepreneur personality does not explain innovation well.

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)0.003
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGovernanceSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207