Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une série d'écrits influents, Ronald Inglehart présente des arguments pour montrer que la politique des démocraties occidentales en est venue à tourner davantage autour de conflits de valeurs que de la distribution de la richesse et du pouvoir. À la suite des études sur les élections canadiennes de 1988, 1993 et 1997, l'auteur reconnaît peu de signes que des questions postmatérialistes délogent des questions matérialistes en politique canadienne. Selon les sondages électoraux, les problèmes matérialistes comme le chômage, le déficit et les impôts sont les préoccupations premières des électeurs au moment des élections. Il a aussi trouvé que les Canadiens, au cours des quelque 15 dernières années, sont devenus moins que plus positifs envers les problèmes postmatérialistes. Il conclut qu'Inglehart, plutôt que de lever le voile sur un virage général en politique occidentale, a découvert un phénomène localisé. In a series of influential writings, Ronald Inglehart makes the case that politics in Western democracies has come to revolve around value conflicts more than the distribution of wealth and power. However, after analysing the 1988, 1993 and 1997 Canadian Election Studies, I find little evidence that post‐materialist issues are replacing materialist ones at the core of Canadian politics. According to election surveys, materialist issues like unemployment, the deficit and taxes are the primary focus of voters during elections. I also find that Canadians have become less rather than more positive toward post‐materialist issues over the past 15 years or so. I conclude that rather than uncovering a global shift in Western politics, Inglehart identified a localized phenomenon.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".