Gender and Elections: An Examination of the 2006 Canadian Federal Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The existing literature on gender effects in the electoral process offers little evidence of significant gender vote share differentials. In this paper it is shown that for the 2006 Canadian federal election, once candidate campaign spending is introduced into the model with appropriate flexibility in the vote share responsiveness across genders, significant differences are found to exist between male and female candidates. The findings suggest that, for equal levels of spending, male incumbents have a vote share advantage relative to female incumbents, though this vote share advantage is found to diminish with increased expenditures. Female non-incumbent candidates, on the other hand, have a vote share advantage over male non-incumbent candidates for higher levels of expenditure and this advantage was found to increase with increased expenditures. Résumé. Les écrits traitant des effets du genre dans le processus électoral offrent peu de preuves d'un écart significatif dans le pourcentage des voix selon le genre. Cet article montrera que, dans le contexte des élections fédérales canadiennes de 2006, une fois que les dépenses de campagne des candidats sont introduites dans le modèle avec la flexibilité adéquate sur la réceptivité du pourcentage des voix selon les genres, on découvre que des différences significatives existent entre les candidats masculins et féminins. Le résultat des recherches montre que pour des dépenses équivalentes, les titulaires masculins ont un avantage sur le pourcentage des voix par rapport aux titulaires de sexe féminin bien qu'il s'avère que cet avantage diminue lorsque les dépenses augmentent. D'autre part, les candidates féminines non-titulaires ont un avantage sur le pourcentage des voix par rapport aux candidats masculins non-titulaires quand les dépenses sont plus élevées et cet avantage s'avère augmenter lorsque les dépenses augmentent.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".