L'abstention sélective, ou pourquoi certains jeunes qui votent au fédéral boudent les élections municipales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Les études sur le comportement électoral au niveau municipal sont rares. Sont encore plus rares celles qui comparent les élections municipales avec celles d'un autre niveau. Cette recherche vise à combler ce vide, mais d'une manière particulière : nous nous intéressons aux gens qui choisissent de s'abstenir de façon sélective. Il s'agit donc de voir pourquoi certains votent lors des élections fédérales mais non lors des élections municipales, ou pourquoi une élection de « deuxième niveau » serait moins attirante qu'une élection de « premier niveau ». Cette question est examinée à l'aide d'un échantillon composé de jeunes montréalais ayant entre 19 et 31 ans. Quatre déterminants sont plus fortement liés à l'abstention sélective : l'identification partisane, l'enracinement local, l'intérêt pour la politique et l'utilisation des services municipaux. Abstract. Studies of electoral behaviour at the municipal level are rare. Even less frequent are those comparing behaviour in municipal elections and in elections at other levels of government. Our aim is to address this gap in the research, with particular interest paid to people who choose to abstain in a selective way. This study considers those who participate in federal elections but not in municipal elections. Stated alternatively, why might second-order elections be less attractive to voters than first-order elections? To address this question, we use a sample composed of young Montrealers aged 19 to 31. Four determinants were found to be important when explaining selective abstention : partisan identification, local attachment, political interest and use of municipal services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".