Automated Author ProfileFlavin, Patrick
Baylor University
Flavin, Patrick
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 6.1 (sum of 16 datasets Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
We compare two widely publicized measures of state electoral integrity in the United States: the Electoral Integrity Project’s 2016 U.S. Perceptions of Electoral Integrity Survey and the Pew 2014 Elections Performance Index. First, we review the theoretical and empirical differences between the two measures and find that they correlate at a surprisingly low level across the states. Second, given this low correlation, we examine the component parts of these indices and find that both are capturing multiple dimensions. Third, we examine how the components and the individual indicators that comprise each measure are linked to citizens’ stated perceptions about electoral integrity. Throughout the paper, we articulate a set of preemptive recommendations that urge researchers to be cautious and deliberate when choosing among measures of electoral integrity to use in future empirical studies.
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Shufeldt, Gregory
One important and, to date, overlooked component of democratic accountability is the extent to which it might exacerbate existing societal inequalities if the outcomes for some groups of citizens are prioritized over others when voters evaluate governmental performance. We analyze a decade of California school board elections and find evidence that voters reward or punish incumbent board members based on the achievement of white students in their district while outcomes for African American and Hispanic students receive comparatively little attention. We then examine public opinion data on the racial education achievement gap and report results from an original list experiment of California school board members that finds approximately 40% of incumbents detect no electoral pressure to address poor academic outcomes among racial minority students. We conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for several scholarly literatures including retrospective voting, racial inequality in political influence, intergovernmental policymaking, and education politics.
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
Read me first!
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.
No description available
Authors
- Flavin, Patrick ;
- Hartney, Michael T.