MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390949531 · doi:10.1177/00207152231223730

Trust repertoires and the reception of institutional responses to the COVID-19 crisis in Europe: A latent class analysis

2024· article· en· W4390949531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marc Verboord

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Comparative Sociology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Societal Challenges
KeywordsEurobarometerEuropean unionLatent class modelPoliticsPublic opinionPolitical scienceSurvey data collectionWorld Values SurveyComparative politicsInstitutional theoryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political economySociologySocial scienceEconomicsLawInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the role of institutional trust in current European societies. Based on a secondary data analysis of Eurobarometer data (response rate 39.6%), it maps institutional trust repertoires and analyzes their consequences for a crisis that disturbed public life immensely in 2020 and 2021—the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures to fight this. Methodologically, it applies a multilevel latent class analysis of 18 institutions. Taking inspiration from “cultural backlash” theory, the explanatory analyses incorporate socio-political values and geographical identifications. The results show that there are seven different trust repertoires in the European Union (EU) countries, ranging from 24 percent mostly trustful to 11 percent mostly distrustful. EU Countries can be clustered into four classes, each with specific repertoire distributions. Particularly satisfaction with one’s own life and world developments is associated with higher trust. Compliance with COVID-19 policies is most likely when citizens trust both national political institutions and media institutions; other institutions matter less. Country health expenditure has a limited effect on the reception of COVID-19 policies but does influence membership of trust repertoires.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Comparative SociologySame topicSocial Capital and NetworksFrench-language works237,207