Bibliographic record
Abstract
Support for democratic regime principles is generally strong and stable across advanced industrial democracies. However, as groups of society are becoming increasingly informed and critical and certain segments remain widely and consistently left out or disillusioned, opinions of democracy may suffer. Using a unique dataset (the Comparative Provincial Election Study) with a representative sample of Quebec voters, this analysis provides for the first time a more detailed and focused examination of orientations toward the democratic political regime across three different levels of government (national, provincial, and municipal). Our study reveals that, while most Quebecers feel that a democratic political regime is a good way of governing at all levels of government, only slightly more than a majority commit solely to a democratic alternative and sizeable segments are open to other regime types as well. Also, few Quebecers feel that their democracies are working well in practice at all levels. Our analysis also reveals significant variation in terms of specific support for authorities, institutions of government, and the workings of democracy. More specifically, Quebecers have less confidence in their political leaders than in their elected representatives, more confidence in their legislatures and civil service than in governments and political parties, and they have the lowest confidence in most of these objects at the federal level. Finally, our findings show that these negative orientations toward specific political objects have robust and significant negative effects on the way Quebecers feel about how well their democratic communities are working in practice, even while controlling for other theoretically relevant cultural, structural, and contextual factors.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".