MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406832829 · doi:10.1080/10361146.2025.2454557

Do voters support democracy at all costs? Input and output legitimacy in Australia and the United Kingdom

2025· article· en· W4406832829 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Political Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAustralian National University
KeywordsLegitimacyPolitical scienceDemocratic legitimacyDemocracyKingdomPolitical economyPublic administrationLaw and economicsLawPoliticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Are voters willing to sacrifice democracy if they get everything else they want from their political leaders? Recent trends towards illiberalism in established democracies have called into question voters’ commitment to democratic values in the face of competing incentives like partisan identities and policy rewards. This article investigates whether voters tolerate breaches of democratic norms (input legitimacy) in the face of policy congruence with a potential leader (output legitimacy). Utilising a conjoint experiment fielded in Australia and the United Kingdom, we find that voters value both types of legitimacy but are prepared to forgo democratic governance (input legitimacy) for high levels of policy congruence (output legitimacy). This research contributes to the growing literature on democratic resilience and authoritarian leadership styles within democracies, showing that there is a danger of citizens trading away democratic principles even in seemingly stable and unchallenged democratic countries.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.322 · 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