Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. While an important component of incumbent support, the effect of economic conditions on vote choice (economic voting) can be undermined by the presence of multilevel institutions; voters are faced with the prospect of evaluating economic conditions and governments at different levels simultaneously. This paper tests the applicability of a model which seeks to account for how and how well voters cope with the complexity of multilevel governance. The accountability-centred model suggests that federal and provincial governments should only be evaluated for those actions and outcomes that they can reasonably be seen to have influence over. Additionally, it is asked whether high information respondents are better able to navigate some of the complexities of Canada's multilevel system. Analyses are conducted using data from the 1993 and 1997 Canadian Election Studies. Résumé. Les conditions économiques constituent un facteur d'appui électoral important pour les dirigeants politiques. Il semble, toutefois, que l'impact de ce facteur soit amoindri dans les États présentant plusieurs niveaux de gouvernement. Dans les sociétés ayant des institutions multi-paliers, les électeurs ont en effet le défi d'attribuer les performances économiques aux divers paliers de gouvernement. Cet article teste un modèle théorique qui tente d'expliquer comment les électeurs se comportent face à la complexité de la gouvernance multi-paliers au Canada. Le modèle, centré sur la responsabilité des dirigeants, suggère que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux devraient uniquement être jugés pour les décisions et résultats politiques sur lesquels ils exercent manifestement une influence. Cet article examine, en outre, la question de savoir si les électeurs bien informés saisissent mieux la complexité de la gouvernance multi-paliers lorsqu'ils évaluent la performance des dirigeants. L'analyse se fonde sur les données de l'Étude électorale canadienne de 1993 et de 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".