Alienation and Nationalism: Is it Possible to Increase First Nations Voter Turnout in Ontario?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses whether Aboriginal voter turnout in Ontario can be increased under a different electoral system.The ways in which the firstpast-the-post electoral system affects voter turnout among Aboriginal peoples are assessed, including an historical examination of Aboriginal electoral politics in Canada and corresponding low levels of Aboriginal voter turnout.Newly-collected, cross-time comparative data are presented on First Nations voter turnout in Ontario elections.The data are assessed within the context of Aboriginal alienation and nationalism, with the purpose of determining the role that each plays in affecting Aboriginal turnout.Finally, options for improving Aboriginal voter turnout are evaluated.L'article évalue si la participation électorale des Autochtones en Ontario pourrait être accrue en adoptant un système électoral différent.L'auteur évalue les incidences du système majoritaire uninominal sur la participation électorale des Autochtones en procédant, entre autres, à un examen historique de la politique électorale des Autochtones au Canada et des faibles niveaux correspondants de participation des Autochtones.On présente des données comparatives temporelles, nouvellement recueillies, sur la participation électorale des Autochtones en Ontario.On évalue les données dans le contexte de l'aliénation et du nationalisme autochtones en vue de déterminer le rôle de chacun de ces facteurs dans la participation électorale des Autochtones.L'auteur évalue aussi les options d'amélioration de la participation électorale autochtone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".