MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296114418 · doi:10.1002/soej.12603

Governors and electoral hazard in the allocation of federal disaster aid

2022· article· en· W4296114418 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouthern Economic Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernorWelfareMoral hazardHazardHazard modelEconomicsPoliticsPublic economicsBusinessPublic administrationPolitical scienceActuarial scienceMicroeconomicsLawIncentiveMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract U.S. public disaster aid provide elected officials opportunities to engage in “electoral hazard,” where an incumbent can influence the probability of re‐election by allocating aid to influence voters' expectations of their future welfare. This is the first test for electoral hazard in the allocation of federal aid to counties exposed to the risk of economic loss from disasters by incumbent state governors running for re‐election. Using a unique county‐level data set, we estimate the determinants of the equilibrium allocation strategy of an incumbent in the presence of electoral hazard. Controlling for loss and the demographic, economic and political characteristics of at‐risk counties, we find the average incumbent governor seeking re‐election actively engages in the manipulation of voter expectations by allocating greater shares and magnitudes of the largest federal disaster aid program to those at‐risk counties that awarded the incumbent governor a plurality of votes in the preceding election.

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.

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 score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.270 · 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