MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289767165 · doi:10.1111/polp.12491

Note from the Editors

2022· article· en· W4289767165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emma R. Norman, David Mena Alemán

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics &amp Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolityVotingPolitical sciencePoliticsDemocracyIndex (typography)Political economyEconomicsPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Welcome to the August 2022 issue of Politics & Policy (P&P)! In this issue, we offer a strong and varied lineup of original research articles on issues ranging from democracy indicators to economic voting, the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), cannabis reform, pensions, energy democratization, the pandemic and borders, economic security in Ukraine, and the Dakota Access Pipeline, right up to Trump's tweets on immigration. We open with Zafirovski's (2022) ambitious, detailed, and successful proposal (and empirical validation) for a new composite index of political democracy. This new index seeks to add more substance, detail, and nuance than hitherto afforded by the most widely used indexes such as the Polity V or Bollen Indexes or the World Governance Indicators. Zafirovski's comprehensive composite index not only covers a wider number of components and endeavors to offer more precision when measuring democracy. It is also intended to be responsive to calculations for types of society or comparative social systems as well as for ranking individual polities. Next, Okolikj and others (2022) add to our past P&P articles on economic voting and party identification (see e.g., Dettrey, 2013; Fernandes et al., 2022; Stegmaier & Lewis-Beck, 2009) in their aggregate analysis testing whether partisanship is endogenous to the macroeconomy—and, thus, questioning the extent to which partisan bias contaminates voters' economic perceptions. They find that economic performance matters to those who identify with a political party primarily when it governs and its policies can be blamed for the economic outcomes. The suggestion here is that governments that fail to produce economic progress will likely face party supporters willing to defect. The next two articles center around the NPF and social media policy narratives. Boscarino (2022) compares the influence of textual versus visual narratives on public opinion and examines if individuals responded differently to them in the case of Twitter narratives related to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Merry (2022) uses the NPF to explore Trump's tweets on immigration policy and reveals their distinctly strategic nature. Lévesque (2022) examines the framing of morality policy in his excellent piece comparing debates about cannabis policy reformulation in the United States and Canada. His findings that moral frames were less important than epistemic ones challenges views of morality policy as a distinct policy subcategory—or at least encourages us to think about the discourse on cannabis as less about “right and wrong” and more about “true and false” in a post-legalization landscape. Contributing to the journal's growing batch of articles specifically discussing pensions in divergent contexts (see e.g., Angelaki & Carrera, 2015; Hazakis, 2015; Jakee & Stacy, 2021), Geri and Villareal (2022) look at the case of pensions in Argentina. The authors expose the myth of economic incentives in the case studied and contribute sound data and insights from Latin America to the debate on the design of optimal pension systems. While our next article was submitted to P&P before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Somych and others' (2022) detailed study of economic security in Ukraine remains as pertinent as it is wide ranging. The article provides valuable information about Ukraine useful to comparative politics scholars and all who wish to deepen their knowledge of the country. However, a major strength of this article lies in its discussion and comparison of Ukraine to many other countries, largely from Europe, in terms of their rankings on development, progress, democracy, and a host of other indexes. Heo (2022) brings the participatory democracy perspective very fully into view in her analysis of South Korean energy democratization. The author demonstrates that, while citizen participation in policy making was posited as a central tenet of South Korea's energy policy, in practice that participatory vision was little more than a formality. Both participatory democracy and several facets of the energy policy suffered as a result. Moving to questions surrounding economic reforms and political consensus, Jouini and Akal (2022) assess Tunisia since the Arab Spring (see also Gazdar et al., 2021) in terms of economic policy. They find that consensus had a subversive effect on democratic institutions in Tunisia by creating informal processes that effectively reduced public oversight, transparency, and law enforcement. Our final article this August applies Giorgio Agamben's concept of “state of exception” to migration at the U.S.–Mexico border during the COVID-19 pandemic. Garrett and Sementelli (2022) argue rigorously that the COVID-19 pandemic has provided an ideal environment for creating states of exception in which the human rights of asylum seekers, refugees, migrants, and their children can and have been violated. They also argue that Trump's and, to a lesser extent, Biden's immigration policies have simultaneously destabilized the Mexico–U.S. border through the politics of fear—with far-reaching implications for sovereignty, legitimacy, and hegemony. As always, we hope you enjoy the ten articles in this issue of P&P and look forward to your continued article submissions at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/polpol.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1760.173

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics &amp PolicySame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207