Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most persistent regularities of Canadian voting behaviour is the finding that Catholics tend to vote for the Liberal Party (e.g., Meisel 1956, 1973; Laponce 1969, 1972; Clarke et al. 1980, 1996; Johnston et al. 1992; Nevitte et al. 2000; Blais et al. 2002; Gidengil et al. 2006, 2009). This paper explores the relationship between Catholics and the Liberal party since 1988 in greater depth. The main question guiding this analysis is whether the recent weakening in the relationship is indicative of a permanent shift in the voting behaviour of Catholics. I consider this from two angles. First, was a trend away from support for the Liberal party by Catholics emerging prior to 2000? Second, if there was such a trend, can it be attributed to a generational change in the attachment between Catholics and the Liberal party? The analysis shows no indication that the preferences of Generation X are driving the change in the relationship, and reveals some interesting findings about the Catholic-Liberal relationship among Baby Boomers.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".