Can Bureaucrats Break Trust? Testing Cultural and Institutional Theories of Trust with Chinese Panel Data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is the relationship between trust and the quality of political institutions in a society? According to an influential cultural perspective, social trust—the belief that most people can be trusted—is a value inculcated during individuals’ formative years, and remains fixed afterward. A second perspective holds that social trust reflects experiences throughout the life course, particularly interactions with public institutions and officials. The authors test these cultural and institutional theories using data from three waves of the China Family Panel Studies, assessing how political and social trust respond to treatment by public officials that respondents consider unfair. The authors find that such experiences, which they show in many cases likely meant being a victim of corruption, are associated with declines in trust. Yet the effects are short lived: within two years both types of trust revert to their original levels. These results therefore provide mixed support for both theories and suggest a reconciliation between them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it