MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416689691 · doi:10.17976/jpps/2025.06.13

Trust in political institutions in comparative perspective: the role of rational and psychological factors

2025· article· W4416689691 on OpenAlex
В. В. Сычев

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueПолис Политические исследования · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Capital and Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutocracyDemocracyPoliticsAuthoritarianismWorld Values SurveyValue (mathematics)Shadow (psychology)Empirical research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently, the scientific literature on political trust continues to be dominated by a rational approach which portrays trust as an evaluation of the effectiveness of institutions and which uses as an empirical basis primarily democratic countries. Such studies are conducted less frequently in non-democratic regimes, which is why political scientists do not have a complete picture of how universal the patterns of political trust formation discovered in democracies actually are. In addition, psychological factors, whose influence on trust may vary depending on the type of regime, remain in the shadow of the rational approach. In this article, the author seeks to fill this research gap and identify similarities and differences in the role of rational and psychological factors in the formation of political institutional trust in democracies and autocracies. To this end, the author analyzes survey data from the 7th wave of the World Value Survey (2017-2022), which surveyed more than 90,000 respondents from around the world. To measure the level of democracy in these countries, the author refers to the V-Dem database and uses the principal component analysis (PCA) to calculate the regime’s democracy index, which allows states to be divided into democratic (18 countries, including Canada, the United States, Germany, Japan, etc.) and authoritarian regimes (22 countries, including Turkey, the Philippines, Iran, Kazakhstan, etc.). The author formulates and tests hypotheses about how the role of factors such as perceived procedural effectiveness, democratic values and psychological needs differs in democracies and autocracies in the institutional trust formation. Empirical analysis revealed that in autocracies, compared to democracies, citizens who rate the democratic nature of elections higher, have more trust in political institutions. At the same time, citizens who believe that corruption is widespread in their country show greater political distrust in democracies than in authoritarian countries. At the same time, in democratic countries, compared to authoritarian ones, citizens who are more prone to the need for an autonomous political climate, trust political institutions more than those whose demand for autonomy is less pronounced. Thus, the results of the study demonstrated the need to take into account the institutional characteristics of different political regimes when analyzing the rational and psychological factors shaping political trust, and outlined the contours for further research in this area.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.339 · 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