MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128215628 · doi:10.1093/isr/viaf029

Mapping the International Supply and Demand Side of Women’s Political Leadership in Crises

2025· article· en· W7128215628 on OpenAlexaff
Madison Schramm, Alexandra Stark, Caitlin McCulloch

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Studies Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)PoliticsDemand sideSupply sideCongruence (geometry)International relationsSupply and demand

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this article, we offer a theoretical framework outlining the conditions under which different types of crises, from wars to natural disasters, increase the probability of a woman ascending to a country’s highest office. We first draw on existing research to identify and develop four different supply and demand pathways that can confer a relative advantage to women running for executive office in times of instability: Traitcasting, Structural Shifts, the “Glass Cliff,” and Policy Recalibration. We then draw from the International Relations and Comparative Politics literatures to identify when each of these mechanisms is likely to be most salient. We suggest that a state’s domestic political institutions and norms along with the crisis characteristics operate as intervening variables, conditioning the salience of the four pathways. After outlining these intervening variables, the third section presents initial congruence tests on the rise of six women to executive office. In doing so, we provide preliminary evidence for this novel theoretical framework on women’s crisis leadership that can be further refined and empirically tested in future research.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Studies ReviewSame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207