MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993075639 · doi:10.1017/s0008423908080761

Whodunnit? Voters and Responsibility in Canadian Federalism

2008· article· en· W1993075639 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismAttributionPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)AccountabilityPoliticsPublic administrationWelfare economicsPsychologyLawSocial psychologyPhilosophyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Government accountability in Canada depends on Canadian voters' attributing responsibility to multiple levels of government for policy outcomes. This study presents the first comprehensive account of these responsibility judgments. The data are from panel surveys of voters in Ontario and Saskatchewan as they faced provincial elections in the fall of 2003 and then the federal election of 2004. Voters were asked about conditions in a number of policy areas and then asked to separately attribute responsibility to the two senior levels of government. Voters do not strongly differentiate the governments' roles and there is little variation across issues. Attentiveness to politics only very slightly improves the quality of responsibility attributions, and only on issues where responsibility is objectively clearer. The results suggest that federalism is a major challenge for Canadian voters wishing to reward or punish their governments for policy outcomes. Résumé. La responsabilisation gouvernementale au Canada dépend de la capacité du citoyen à différencier clairement les sphères d'activité des divers paliers de gouvernement. Cette étude offre, pour la première fois, un portrait exhaustif des mécanismes d'attribution de la responsabilité dans le système fédéral canadien. Les données sont tirées de deux enquêtes en panel réalisées durant les campagnes électorales provinciales de l'Ontario et de la Saskatchewan à l'automne 2003, puis durant la campagne fédérale de 2004. Deux aspects principaux de ces enquêtes ont été retenus pour cette étude. Tout d'abord, les répondants ont été interrogés sur leur perception de l'état des choses quant à une série d'enjeux de politique publique (économie, système de santé, et ainsi de suite). Ils ont ensuite dû attribuer la responsabilité de ces politiques aux deux paliers supérieurs de gouvernement au Canada. Il s'avère que les électeurs ne différencient que faiblement le rôle de chaque palier de gouvernement et ce, quel que soit l'enjeu. La capacité d'attribution de la responsabilité n'est que légèrement affectée par le niveau d'attention à la politique de l'électeur. Les résultats de l'analyse suggèrent que la nature fédérale du système politique canadien demeure un défi important à surmonter pour l'électeur qui désire récompenser ou punir ses gouvernements pour une politique publique donnée.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it