Reconceptualizing “feeling represented”: A new approach to measure how feelings of political representation are constructed
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In political representation, the concept of feeling represented has garnered significant attention in recent years. However, the prevailing conceptualization of feeling represented is limited in its scope and has effectively conflated a perception of being represented with feeling represented. We argue that such a conflation undermines our understanding of political representation, especially in the face of the constructivist turn in representation. Constructivist scholars have theoretically elaborated that representation results from a process in which a linkage is created between represented and representative. We argue that feeling represented is an essential part of establishing this representative relationship. By drawing on the recent constructivist turn in representation and applying key insights from psychology, we develop and test a reconceptualization of feeling represented. Through an online survey, American prolific users ( $$N=605$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi>N</mml:mi> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>605</mml:mn> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ) were asked a number of questions related to feeling represented after witnessing representative claims by unelected representatives. Through both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, we establish that feeling represented is a multidimensional concept consisting of instrumental, expressive, and aversive dimensions. Thus, feeling represented is a subjective state consisting of clearly emotional components, and it can be measured as a response to unelected representation. Acknowledging this goes beyond the current constructivist account of representation and sets the stage for future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it