MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394820634 · doi:10.1080/17457289.2024.2337928

Do people vote to avoid disapproval?

2024· article· en· W4394820634 on OpenAlexaff
Maxime Coulombe, André Blais, Ruth Dassonneville

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutSocial psychologyDutyPerceptionPsychologyVoter turnoutPoliticsPolitical scienceVotingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Do people vote to meet others’ approval or to avoid their disapproval if they were to abstain? We examine the role of injunctive norms on turnout by means of discussion network data from an original survey module in the Austrian National Election Study. We improve on previous measures of injunctive norms by asking respondents whether their political discussants would disapprove if they abstained. We find that about half of the respondents believe that people around them would be disappointed if they did not vote and that disapproval expectations matter for turnout, but only among those with a weak sense of civic duty. Our study contributes to a better understanding of how individual perceptions about social norms matter for voter turnout.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and PartiesSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207