Postmaterialism in Unresponsive Political Systems: The Canadian Case*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous examinons la thèse de Ronald Inglehart selon laquelle le postmatérialisme est un phénomène politique universel qui concerne toute société industrialisée avancée. Après avoir introduit une distinction entre systèmes politiques réactifs et non réactifs, nous proposons que, dans les systèmes réactifs, le clivage matérialiste s'est enracinéà un tel point qu'il triomphait encore du postmatérialisme. Par contre, le postmatérialisme a réussi à se démarquer dans les systèmes non réactifs, ceux où le clivage matérialiste avait toujours été plus faible. Nous soutenons que les données tirées des sondages nationaux tenus lors des élections canadiennes de 1984 et 1997 confirment notre hypothèse sur les effets des systèmes non réactifs. Bien que le Canada soit l'objet principal de notre analyse, dans la conclusion nous nous penchons sur des facteurs qui pourraient expliquer les différences dans le postmatérialisme aux niveaux provincial et international. This article disputes Inglehart's claim that postmaterialism is a uniform political phenomenon that transcends differences between advanced industrial societies. We distinguish responsive from unresponsive political systems and argue that, in responsive systems, the materialist cleavage became so deeply entrenched that postmaterialism could not vie for dominance. In contrast, postmaterialism has become more salient than materialism in unresponsive systems, where the materialist cleavage was weaker to begin with. We argue that data from the Canadian National Election Surveys of 1984 and 1997 are consistent with our prediction about the effect of unresponsiveness. Differences within the Canadian electorate became weaker for materialist issues but more pronounced for postmate‐rialist issues between 1984 and 1997. Although our empirical analysis focusses on Canada, we conclude by speculating about the causes of cross‐provincial and cross‐national variations in postmaterialism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".