Le vote économique en contexte de crise financière : l'élection provinciale de 2008 au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.En déclenchant une élection provinciale anticipée à l'automne 2008 en pleine crise financière, le premier ministre du Québec, Jean Charest, fit le pari que la population réélirait son gouvernement en raison de sa compétence à gérer la «tempête économique» qui s'annonçait. Cet article cherche à déterminer le poids de la variable économique dans les choix électoraux lors de ce scrutin en exploitant les données d'une enquête d'opinion menée en décembre 2008. Ces données permettent notamment de vérifier à quel point le «vote économique» lors de cette élection en fut un de nature traditionnelle, c'est-à-dire s'appuyant sur les évaluations rétrospectives de l'économie de la part des votants, ou plutôt un de nature prospective, reposant sur les perceptions de la compétence des partis à gérer la crise économique annoncée. Nous analysons également l'effet particulier exercé sur le vote par l'enjeu des pertes de la Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. Abstract.By calling an early election in the fall of 2008 in the midst of a financial crisis, Quebec Premier Jean Charest hoped that the population would re-elect his government on the basis of its competence at dealing with the upcoming “economic storm.” This article attempts to determine the actual influence that the economy had on Quebeckers' vote choice in that election, with the use of survey data collected in December 2008. The data allows us to verify whether “economic voting” in that election was of a traditional nature, that is based on retrospective assessments of economic conditions, or was more prospective in nature, that is based on perceptions of the parties' competence at managing the economic crisis that would soon follow. The impact on the vote of the issue of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec's losses is also analyzed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".