Conceptions of Political Representation in Canada: An Explanation of Public Opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract.Despite widespread attention paid to issues of representation, how Canadians think and feel about different facets of representation are inadequately documented and understood. Using data from the 2000 Canadian Election Study (CES), the article addresses this dearth of systematic research through an examination of popularly held attitudes toward three dimensions of political representation: direct versus representative democracy, the role of the elected representative and territorial versus non-territorial bases of substantive representation. Particular attention is paid to the impact of political knowledge and the individualist/collectivist value cleavage on representational preferences. Results are discussed in light of current debates regarding institutional and representational change in Canada. Résumé.En dépit de l'attention portée aux enjeux de la représentation, les sentiments et les idées des Canadiens par rapport aux différents aspects de la représentation sont mal documentés et compris. Cet article emploie les données de l'Étude électorale canadienne (ÉÉC) et cherche à combler cette lacune en examinant les attitudes populaires par rapport à trois dimensions de la représentation politique : la démocratie directe versus représentative, le rôle du représentant élu, et les bases de représentation territoriales versus non-territoriales. Nous accordons une attention particulière aux répercussions du niveau de connaissances politiques et des valeurs individualistes ou collectivistes sur les préférences en matière de représentation. Les résultats sont examinés à la lumière des débats récents sur le renouveau institutionnel et les modifications de la représentation au Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".