Tarefa crb_papers.q022

Veredito

Pergunta feita ao analista

By how much did the State Democracy Index change from 2010 to 2012 in states that newly gained unified Republican control in 2011 versus states that did not?

Valores esperados e de onde vêm

Verificações

Caminho de referência e caminho do agente

A chamada de referência ao lado da chamada que deu a resposta, argumento por argumento.

Trajetória

Cada evento na ordem em que aconteceu: turnos do modelo, chamadas de ferramentas, guardas, transformações e pontuação.

1. 0Início

   By how much did the State Democracy Index change from 2010 to 2012 in states that newly gained unified Republican control in 2011 versus states that did not?

   ds_0012 (agent)

   | Variable Name | Description | | --- | --- | | index | Sequential row identifier from the file export; included for reference and not used as a substantive measure. | | Republican | Binary indicator (0/1) for unified Republican control of state government in a given year. Equals 1 when the governorship and both legislative chambers were held by Republicans; 0 otherwise (including divided or other control). Compiled from state partisan balance data with updates from legislative tracking organizations. | | state | U.S. state name (50 states). | | year | Calendar year of observation (2000–2016). | | democracy_mcmc | Continuous State Democracy Index score for the state-year, estimated via Bayesian factor analysis (MCMC) from 51 state-level indicators of electoral rules, administrative performance, districting metrics, and related practices. The scale is approximately standardized across the panel (values can be negative or positive around zero); higher values indicate stronger electoral-democracy performance. Sources feeding the indicators include election administration data (e.g., MIT Election Lab), legislative policy compilations (e.g., NCSL), gerrymandering diagnostics, and measures of policy–opinion congruence. | Dataset Context: This file is a state–year panel that assembles administrative records, policy codings, and quantitative diagnostics to summarize how U.S. states structure and administer electoral democracy. The period 2000–2016 spans consequential developments in state election law and administration, including reforms that expanded access (e.g., early voting, online and same‑day registration, and the beginnings of automatic voter registration late in the period) and policies that increased participation costs for some voters (e.g., voter ID requirements). It also covers the 2010 redistricting cycle and subsequent evaluations of district plans using established gerrymandering metrics. During these years, federal–state relations affecting elections shifted as well, including changes to Voting Rights Act oversight after 2013, which altered how and where states implemented election-law changes. The State Democracy Index (reported here as democracy_mcmc) is constructed by combining 51 indicators into a single latent score using Bayesian factor analysis designed for mixed data types (binary, ordinal, and continuous). Indicator families include: election access rules (registration and voting modalities), administrative performance (e.g., wait times, provisional ballot handling, data completeness), post‑election audit requirements, districting fairness diagnostics (efficiency gap, partisan symmetry, declination, compactness), and measures of policy–opinion alignment. Indicator inputs draw on sources such as the MIT Election Lab’s compilations of election administration statistics, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ inventories of state election laws, quantitative assessments of district plans, and state policy–opinion datasets. Scores are standardized to facilitate comparison across states and years, with higher values reflecting stronger performance on these electoral-democracy dimensions. The unified-party-control variable is built from long‑running state partisan balance datasets and contemporary updates that track which party simultaneously held the governorship and majorities in both legislative chambers in each year. Together with state names and calendar years, these fields allow analysts to align institutional configurations with contemporaneous features of election law, administration, and districting captured in the index.

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   ref_panel (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year in [2010, 2012]"}
   4. merge {"how":"left","on":["state"],"with":"ref_switch"}
   5. merge {"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_pre"}
   6. merge {"how":"inner","on":["state"],"with":"ref_post"}
   7. filter {"query":"r_pre == 0 and ((syear == 2011 and r_post == 1) or ((syear != syear or syear > 2012) and r_post == 0))"}
   8. derive {"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"r_post","value":1},"name":"Tgroup","op":"indicator"}
   9. derive {"args":{"cmp":"eq","column":"year","value":2012},"name":"Post","op":"indicator"}
   10. derive {"args":{"columns":["Tgroup","Post"]},"name":"DID","op":"interaction"}

   ref_post (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year == 2012"}
   4. select {"columns":["state","Republican"]}
   5. rename {"map":{"Republican":"r_post"}}

   ref_pre (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. filter {"query":"year == 2010"}
   4. select {"columns":["state","Republican"]}
   5. rename {"map":{"Republican":"r_pre"}}

   ref_switch (reference)

   file c41bdacd62be74293e7a28a6c5d82a460ccf5f046e080a7443363bc59ff73fb0 · frame —

   1. select {"columns":["Republican","state","year","democracy_mcmc"]}
   2. dropna {"columns":["state","year","Republican","democracy_mcmc"]}
   3. derive {"args":{"by":["state"],"column":"Republican","order":["year"],"periods":1},"name":"r_prev","op":"lag"}
   4. filter {"query":"Republican == 1 and r_prev == 0"}
   5. collapse {"aggs":[{"column":"year","fn":"min","name":"syear"}],"by":["state"]}
2. 1Turno do modelo
   call_b647baa7rules-1Fim: tool_use0 ms0 de entrada · 0 de saída · 0 de raciocínio · 0 em cache

   Chamadas pedidas

   • submit_answer (meta-ferramenta)

     {
       "answer": "Pelas regras deste roteador não identifiquei um desenho que responda à pergunta; nenhuma estimativa foi feita.",
       "caveats": [],
       "figure_refs": []
     }

   Mensagens (formato neutro)Instruções do sistemaFerramentas oferecidas
3. 2Guarda
   resposta aceita

   Números encontrados

   —

   Sem lastro

   —

   Não citados

   —

   1 nova(s) tentativa(s) restante(s)
4. 3Resposta

   Pelas regras deste roteador não identifiquei um desenho que responda à pergunta; nenhuma estimativa foi feita.

   Figuras citadas: — · Parada: answered
5. 4Pontuação
   #0resposta com lastropassouobrigatóriaevery number backed
6. 5Pontuação
   #1figura da resposta próximafalhouobrigatóriano answer figure: the answer cites no effect of an estimator call
7. 6Pontuação
   #2figura da resposta próximafalhouregistradano answer figure: the answer cites no effect of an estimator call
8. 7Pontuação
   #3figura da resposta próximafalhouregistradano answer figure: the answer cites no effect of an estimator call

Épocas × verificações

Tentativas

Cada tentativa é seu próprio arquivo e é publicada; só a última de cada época é pontuada.

• época 1, tentativa 1falhoupontuada(exibindo)

Downloads desta tarefa