MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416193950 · doi:10.1007/s10611-025-10235-4

To report or not to report corruption? An empirical investigation of the determinants of corruption reporting in Africa

2025· article· en· W4416193950 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

VenueCrime Law and Social Change · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCorruption and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLanguage changePoliticsImpunityLogitConsumption (sociology)PerceptionLogistic regressionPublic opinion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Corruption remains a persistent challenge in Africa, yet individual level factors that influence citizens willingness to report corruption remains understudied despite various national level anti-corruption efforts. This article addresses this gap by examining the determinants of corruption reporting using a generalised ordered logit model. The findings reveal that higher education levels, employment with assets, civic engagement, and trust in political institutions increase the likelihood of reporting corruption. However, political affiliation, urban residency, gender, religiosity, perceptions of impunity among public officials, and media consumption have weaker effects. These results highlight the complexity of citizens anti-corruption efforts and emphasize the need for multifaceted strategies tailored to individual and contextual factors in Africa.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.248
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.181 · 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