MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229578811 · doi:10.33423/jabe.v21i7.2543

When More Democracy Means More Inequality: A Path Analysis

2019· article· en· W4229578811 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter Maille, Alan R. Collins, Steve Tanner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Business and Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyInequalityAuthoritarianismPer capitaEconomicsEconomic inequalityDevelopment economicsLanguage changePer capita incomeDemographic economicsPolitical scienceSociologyDemographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Path analysis is used to examine an observed positive relationship between inequality and democracy. Specifically, the impact of democracy and corruption on inequality and per capita income is assessed based on a cross-sectional data set covering 125 countries. We show high inequality democracies are associated with elevated corruption, lower per capita income, and a ceiling on democratic achievement. We argue that democracy increasing in tandem with inequality is consistent with authoritarian leadership attempting to grow an economy for self-enrichment. We propose measures of democracy need to account for democratic policies whose actual aim may be the enrichment of elites.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Business and EconomicsSame topicCorruption and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207