MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208766044 · doi:10.33774/apsa-2021-qpczc

Testing Negative: The Non-Consequences of COVID-19 on Mass Ideology

2021· preprint· en· W3208766044 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Blumenau, Timothy Jacobs Hicks, Alan M. Jacobs, Scott C. Matthews, Tom O’Grady

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyRedistribution (election)EliteCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Government (linguistics)RhetoricSurvey data collectionPolitical economyPolitical sciencePandemicPanel dataState (computer science)Scale (ratio)Demographic economicsDevelopment economicsPublic economicsEconomicsPoliticsGeographyMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responding to COVID-19, governments implemented large-scale economic and social policies of unprecedented scale. This highlighted the state's capacity to guarantee economic and health security, and affected demographic groups that are less commonly beneficiaries of state support. We hypothesise that exposure to the pandemic and these policy responses caused change in attitudes to the role of government in the economy and redistribution. We test this expectation using data from the (2014–present) British Election Study panel, together with a unique panel survey fielded to existing BES respondents in April and September, 2020. We find virtually no evidence of any effect on ideological beliefs. Moreover, using a survey experiment, we find exposure to cues linking the pandemic to greater roles for government has no impact on ideological beliefs. We conclude that such elite rhetoric, even if it had been present in the field, would not have yielded ideological change.

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 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)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207