Le Parti québécois, le « non » à Charlottetown et le Bloc québécois : est-ce le même électorat?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude examine les similitudes possibles entre des options exprimées au cours de trois scrutins successifs : les votes pour le Parti québécois lors de l’élection provinciale du 25 septembre 1989, les votes pour le « non » à l’Accord de Charlottetown lors du référendum du 26 octobre 1992 et les votes pour le Bloc québécois lors de l’élection fédérale du 25 octobre 1993. Une analyse de régression multiple met en relation les résultats de ces trois options avec certaines caractéristiques socio-économiques des circonscriptions électorales. L’analyse est faite pour toutes les circonscriptions ainsi que pour un sous-ensemble de circonscriptions à 90 % ou plus de francophones, afin d’isoler le comportement des francophones. Des ressemblances significatives ressortent de la comparaison entre les trois électorats considérés.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".