MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409022959 · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edaf003

Elder, Am I Right? Age-Group Differences in Social and Political Interactions in Africa

2025· article· en· W4409022959 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Erlich, Andrew McCormack

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Public Opinion Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsGroup (periodic table)Political sciencePsychologyGender studiesSociologyLawPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Age-group differences play an essential role in social interaction across sub-Saharan Africa. However, the social effects of these differences remain understudied. We hypothesize that age-group differences will affect response patterns and use Afrobarometer data to test this hypothesis. We also explore three mechanisms through which age-group differences may induce response-pattern variation: in-group loyalty, social acquiescence, and social distance. As hypothesized, we find relatively large and statistically significant effects for age-group differences across a variety of questions. Our findings support in-group loyalty and social acquiescence rather than social distance when questions do not address age-related issues directly. However, social distance may play a more important role when questions address age-specific issues. Additionally, we show preliminary evidence that age-group differences induce larger response-pattern variation than coethnicity. Our findings speak to the importance of age in social interaction in Africa and provide important lessons for the survey research community.

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)0.010
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.350
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Public Opinion ResearchSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207