MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107032619 · doi:10.24124/c677/20151207

Explaining the Federal-Provincial Turnout Gap in the Canadian Provinces

2015· article· en· W2107032619 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lori Thorlakson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurnoutVoter turnoutOrder (exchange)Political scienceDemocracyGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPublic administrationDemographic economicsFederal electionEconomicsVotingLawFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Second order election models predict that voter turnout will generally be lower in ‘second order’ subnational elections compared to ‘first order’ federal elections. In Canada, we find that this is not always the case: some provinces have higher turnout rates for provincial elections than federal elections. Using data from seven Canadian provincial elections, this article examines how attitudes such as trust, satisfaction with democracy and interest in politics compare across levels of government in order to explain cross-provincial differences in voter turnout. It finds that while contextual factors matter, interest in provincial politics is one of the strongest predictors of high provincial turnout relative to federal turnout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207