MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295788903 · doi:10.1145/3543434.3543453

Institutional Trust and Social Media Use in Citizen-State Relations: Results from an international cross country vignette study

2022· article· en· W4295788903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vincent Homburg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignetteSocial mediaGovernment (linguistics)Public relationsPolitical scienceDemographicsAffect (linguistics)DemocracyState (computer science)Survey data collectionSociologySocial psychologyPsychologyPoliticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to identify whether trust affects citizens’ use of social media to initiate conversations with government on social media platforms. Using a vignette survey, we gathered data from the Canada, Greece, the Netherlands and Paraguay. Multivariate analysis showed that controlling for demographics and individual-level adoption factors, trust in government does not impact citizens’ use of social media to initiate conversations about public issues, but trust in social media business and organizational infrastructure is (both in democratic countries as well as in flawed democracies). These results highlight how trust in institutions affect citizens’ engagement and digital participation, and identifies conditions under which social media platforms may contribute to a vibrant democracy.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Media and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207