The end of the ‘consociational mood’? Generational differences in sense-making of regionalization among Belgian Dutch-speakers
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
Regionalization has become increasingly salient for citizens. To assess whether citizens perceive the process as legitimate, studies have increasingly focused on understanding public opinion towards power devolution. Yet, few have considered regionalization as a self-reinforcing driver of public opinion. Drawing on the literature of policy feedback, the paper argues that the political narrative justifying the large-scale redefinition of the state has had a lasting, socializing effect on how citizens make sense of regionalization, known as normative policy feedback. To empirically demonstrate this mechanism, the paper explores sense-making of Dutch-speaking citizens in Belgium. Through inter-generational comparison it finds a fading 'consociational mood' among participants socialized in a federal Belgium. In contrast, participants socialized in pre-federal Belgium continue to believe in the necessity of protecting language rights and segmental autonomy. The article thus shows that while participants support regionalization, they have qualitatively different normative assumptions regarding its purpose.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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