MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383272214 · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2023.06.009

Economic insecurity, nativism, and the erosion of institutional trust

2023· article· en· W4383272214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Rohde

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Economic Behavior & Organization · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCulture, Economy, and Development Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological nativismMicrodata (statistics)ImmigrationDemographic economicsDevelopment economicsEconomicsHostilityPolitical scienceSociologySocial psychologyPsychologyDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study markers of economic insecurity and nativism as factors explaining recent declines in institutional confidence. Taking microdata from 59 middle and upper-income nations, we show that hostility towards immigrants/immigration and a synthetic measure of economic insecurity are both significant predictors of individual-level institutional mistrust. Our parameter estimates are slightly larger and more robust for economic insecurity, and the results are stronger for developed, western countries (UK, USA, Australia, Canada) than in Asia or South America. The correlations appear for a wide variety of trust metrics and do not differ meaningfully between profit-driven and non-profit making institutions. In line with the concept of economic nationalism, we also find evidence of an ‘amplification’ effect, where individuals exposed to higher levels of economic insecurity are more responsive to nativist beliefs. The results have implications for policymakers looking to promote institutional confidence and social cohesion .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Economic Behavior & OrganizationSame topicCulture, Economy, and Development StudiesFrench-language works237,207