MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411291894 · doi:10.1017/s0143814x25100688

Types of pandemic-induced psychological distress, clarity of responsibility, and support for incumbents

2025· article· en· W4411291894 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

VenueJournal of Public Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYPsychological distressPsychologyPandemicDistressCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social psychologyMental healthClinical psychologyPsychotherapistMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Will voters punish incumbents for psychological distress associated with public policy during external shocks? This study examines this question in the empirical context of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in India, utilizing three novel cross-sectional surveys conducted in the first three weeks of June 2020, immediately after the national lockdown policy was officially revoked. We find that propensity to vote for the nationally incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party (if hypothetical elections were held on the day of the survey) was negatively correlated with mental stress from routine disruptions in mobility (Week 1); worsening mental health (Week 2); and emotion-focused coping (Week 3). We show that these effects are strongest in BJP-ruled states. We argue that psychological distress shaped political attitudes in the midst of the pandemic and this effect was conditional on the source of distress and moderated by governmental clarity of responsibility.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.371 · 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