Where are we with closing the gender gap in internal political efficacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gender inequalities in political ambition and participation persistently concern those aiming for more gender emancipation in the political realm.Although female descriptive representation has increased in many Western democracies, gender differences in political participation endure (Fox and Lawless, 2014;Burns et al, 2018;Wolak, 2020), harming the representation of women's interests (Wängnerud, 2009).An important pathway to why women are less inclined to become politically active is their lower confidence levels, specifically in a political setting (Wolak, 2020).Internal political efficacy (IPE) refers to individuals' self-confidence about their abilities to understand and engage with politics (Beaumont, 2010), and IPE is a strong predictor of political participation (Levy and Akiva, 2019).Analogously with the general notion of self-efficacy, it is argued that people are highly influenced by their self-confidence to successfully carry out a task and be motivated to do so: 'Unless people believe they can produce desired outcomes, they have little incentive to address challenging tasks, to pursue ambitious goals, and to persevere in the face of difficulties' (Caprara et al, 2009(Caprara et al, : 1004)).The same holds in the political field, where people's beliefs in their political capabilities mediate future political participation (Levy and Akiva, 2019).Political scientists started researching IPE in the 1950s as an essential determinant of political participation.One of the first accounts described IPE as a 'feeling that political and social change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change' (Campbell et al, 1954: 187).Empirical studies conducted with data from Europe, Canada and the US consistently show lower levels of IPE for women than men despite their having similar resources (Gidengil et al, 2008;Thomas, 2012;Fraile and de Miguel Moyer, 2022).Gidengil et al (2008: 544-5) show a consistent gender gap ranging between 10
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".