Political and Socioeconomic Influences on Social Distancing Behaviour in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Social Distancing Index (SDI) measures social distancing behaviour every day across all fifty American states. This study leverages SDI data to model social distancing behaviour with time-series COVID-19 data, as well as an array of political and economic variables. The central aim of this study is to examine three hypotheses: (i) COVID-19 outbreaks within a state will induce social distancing by fear of the virus, (ii) states with more low-income workers will engage in less social distancing due to the nature of essential work, and (iii) political beliefs will influence social distancing behaviour, through the public debate over social distancing policy and a partisan logic defining state stay-at-home orders. We use Vector Autoregressive (VAR) and Beta Regression models to determine the most influential variables in this study. VAR models for time-series relationships between cases and social distancing behaviour in California and Texas, and corresponding Granger-Cause Test results, are investigated through case studies. Significant Beta model variables influencing social distancing behaviour are closely examined through visual data analysis and qualitatively contextualized to describe relationships present in the data. Our results indicate statistically significant relationships between the severity of state outbreaks, age and income distribution, change in governor approval ratings, and social distancing behaviour. There are also clear relationships between the partisan make-up of a state and social distancing behaviour. The results found in this study contribute to growing evidence regarding the impact political polarization has on various aspects of American social life, while giving insight to behavioural dynamics that play a critical role in mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".