MétaCan
Menu
Cohort builder

4,299,418 works, Canadian by any of four routes.

Every filter state is a URL; the URL is the query; the query is citable via /q/⟨hash⟩. The page, the API and the export parse the same parameters.

The current cohort, streamed from the database: every work column, the machine labels, the provisional scores, and the per-row validation status. Exports are capped at 100,000 rows. Mints a permanent /q/ link for this exact query. The same filters always produce the same link, whoever asks.

Search term
Author
Year range
Sort
Language
Type
Field
Venue
Topic
Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Retraction
Abstract
Evidence source
Study design
Label agreement
Label status

Direct Codex and Gemma labels are unvalidated and sparse. Distilled predictions cover the full frame and are also unvalidated. Choose the evidence source explicitly; absence of a direct label is never a negative label.

affaffiliation
fundfunder
venuejournal
aboutaboutness

The four routes compose: require the funder route and exclude affiliation to get the funder-only stratum no affiliation-based frame ever sees.

1,890 results · 1 filter active ·
Results by year
20002025
Publication date
Categories
Machine labels · sparse coverage
Evidence
Language
Type
Citations
An unlabeled work is unknown, not a negative. Label coverage is reported on every query.
1,890 works in the cohort · of 4,299,418page 18 of 38

Labels cover 4 of 1,890 works in this cohort. The rest are unlabeled, which is not a negative label: the label table is sparse today and grows as labeling rounds land.

Distilled predictions cover 1,890 of 1,890 works in this cohort. Predictions are machine_predicted_unvalidated. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work (title-only); the Codex side is a distilled, calibrated classifier. Candidate is the union; consensus is the intersection.

affaboutunlabeled
Economic decline and voter discontent
Andrea M. L. Perrella
2009· article· en· The Social Science Journal· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
6
citations
afffundunlabeled
Understanding people’s choice when they have two votes
Ludovic Rheault, André Blais, John H. Aldrich, Thomas Gschwend
2018· article· en· Journal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
6
citations
affunlabeled
Dynamics of the 2000 Republican Primaries
Michael G. Hagen, Richard Johnston, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, David Dutwin, Kate Kenski
2000· article· en· The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
6
citations
affunlabeled
Developing a theory of robust democracy
Eva Sørensen, Mark E. Warren
2024· article· en· Policy & Politics· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
5
citations
affunlabeled
Uncontested Primaries: Causes and Consequences
Benoît S. Y. Crutzen, Nicolas Sahuguet
2018· article· en· Quarterly Journal of Political Science· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
5
citations
fundaboutno affunlabeled
Are poor people poorly heard?
Julie Sevenans, Awenig Marié, Christian Breunig, Stefaan Walgrave, Karolin Soontjens, Rens Vliegenthart
2024· article· en· European Journal of Political Research· Social Sciences
machine prediction:candidate · noneconsensus · none
5
citations

How this was built: Screen · Findings · About