American Values Decline with American Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Excerpt) A poll on American values in the Wall Street Journal last week has caused a stir. The poll, which the Journal conducted along with the well-regarded NORC at the University of Chicago—the non-partisan research organization that also conducts the biennial General Social Survey (GSS), widely seen as the gold standard in public opinion studies—shows a marked shift in American values over the last 25 years, towards an apathetic detachment from the wider society. According to the new poll, only 38% of Americans today say that “patriotism” is very important to them, compared to 70% in 1998. Only 39% say “religion” is very important, compared to 69% 25 years ago. “Community involvement” and “having children” have also decreased in importance, as has “tolerance for others,” notwithstanding the unrelenting focus on “inclusion” in the media, elite educational institutions, government, and large corporations. “The only priority . . . that has grown in the past quarter century,” the Journal reports, “is money, which was cited as very important by 43% in the new survey, up from 31% in 1998.” The poll also reveals other striking trends. Although the change in values has been going on for a quarter-century, sharp breaks seem to have occurred just in the last few years. For example, more than 60% of Americans thought that community involvement was very important in 2019. Only 27% of us do now. And the shift in values appears particularly pronounced among young Americans. While 59% of seniors say that patriotism is very important to them, only 23% of adults below the age of 30 agree. Fifty-five percent of seniors say religion is very important to them, compared to only 31% of younger respondents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.004 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".