L’électorat féminin face aux options constitutionnelles : un groupe fragmenté
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif d’identifier quelques-uns des traits qui caractérisent les positions des femmes du Québec face aux options constitutionnelles telles que posées à l’occasion du référendum de 1995. L’analyse repose sur deux axes. Le premier axe privilégie la comparaison femmes-hommes. Il repose sur l’idée que l’on ne peut penser les femmes et les hommes comme des catégories électorales radicalement distinctes et polarisées. Le second axe privilégie la comparaison entre les femmes favorables à la souveraineté du Québec et celles qui rejettent une telle perspective. Il repose sur l’hypothèse que les femmes ne constituent pas un bloc monolithique dans leurs rapports avec les options constitutionnelles au Québec. Les résultats présentés dans cet article proviennent d’un sondage original effectué en avril 1997.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".