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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".