MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052200759

Political Influence Efforts in the US Through Campaign Contributions and Lobbying Expenditures: An Index Approach

2021· report· en· W7052200759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIssue Lab (Candid) · 2021
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsIndex (typography)Value (mathematics)AutocracyPublic sectorPublic policyRelative value
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efforts by private-sector entities, nongovernment organizations, and other interest groups to exert political influence are pervasive in American politics, as they are in Australia, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, and other high-income democracies. Such efforts are also found in more autocratic societies such as China and Russia. However, legalized forms of political influence such as campaign contributions and lobbying efforts are more widespread in well-established democracies such as the United States.Importantly, efforts to influence political and administrative decisions can be good or bad, but either way, understanding the extent to which individual sectors of the economy engage in efforts to affect policy and regulatory initiatives is of interest. In this report, using publicly available information on federal campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures associated with individual sectors of the economy, we construct a set of political influence effort indexes for 60 sectors of the United States economy.The indexes are estimated using publicly available data, compiled by OpenSecrets from public sources, on federal campaign contributions and expenditures on lobbying efforts, divided by each sector's gross value of output, for each year from 2003 to 2020. Thus, for each sector in each year, we obtain an estimate of the dollars spent on political influence efforts at the federal level per million dollars of sector gross output. Index values are obtained by dividing each sector's outlays by average outlays per million dollars of output among the entire 60 sectors (that is, total spending on campaign contributions and lobbying divided by total output for all 60 sectors). An index value of one for a given sector indicates that the sector's efforts to exert political influence through lobbying and campaign contributions are representative of economy-wide efforts. A value of two indicates that a sector is investing twice as much as the average amount among all industries; an index value of 0.5 indicates the sector's expenditures are half the average amount

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)0.009
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.019
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssue Lab (Candid)Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207