MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386805442 · doi:10.1080/14719037.2023.2254306

Working 9 to 5? A cross-national analysis of public sector worker stereotypes

2023· article· en· W4386805442 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sheeling Neo, Isa Bertram, Gabriela Szydlowski, Robin Bouwman, Noortje de Boer, Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, Étienne Charbonneau, M. Jae Moon, Lars Tummers

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Management Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Research FoundationNational Research Foundation of KoreaUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsPublic sectorStereotype (UML)Context (archaeology)Political scienceJob securityPerceptionDemographic economicsPublic relationsSociologySocial psychologyPsychologyEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an inductive, citizen-driven appraoch to identify stereotypes of public sector worekrs across the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and South Korea (Study 1: n=918; Study 2: n=3,042). Contrary to common negative portrayals, we idetify two positive stereotypes across countries — having job security and serving society; and one neutral/negative stereotype — going home on time. Notably, Americans and Canadians have a more favorable view of public sector workers than the Dutch and South Koreans. This study opens avenues for exploring positive public sector stereotypes and the impact of context on these perceptions.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Management ReviewSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207