Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fola and Titi Soboyejo were so eager to cast their ballots in the January 23rd Canadian Federal election that they spent thousands of dollars to make it happen. The two Nigerian immigrants to Canada passed their citizenship test in the summer of 2004, but because their hometown of Yellowknife has such a small population, it holds swearing‐in ceremonies only once each year. That would not have been soon enough for the Soboyejos to vote in the upcoming election. On a snowy Wednesday in January, they spent $3000 of their own money to fly their family from Yellowknife to Edmonton to attend a swearing‐in ceremony. By Thursday they were Canadian citizens, in time to cast their vote. The Soboyejos felt strongly that democracy cannot be taken for granted. “I think that is where my interest really is,” Mr. Sobojoyejo said, “to say that I played my part.” 1 As we know from frequently cited statistics on voter participation, not all Canadians feel as strongly as the Soboyejos about playing their part, at least not where voting is concerned. Voter turnout for the 2004 Canadian federal elections was 60.9 per cent, the lowest in the history of Canada (Elections Canada, 2004). Nearly nine million registered voters did not show up at the polls. Voting rates in the U.S.A. show similar declines. Although, in the 2004 U.S. presidential election, there was an upturn in the latest voting rates, these followed a forty year decline, and still only 60.7 per cent of eligible U.S. voters participated. Although in Canada and other democracies voting is certainly not the only form of political participation, especially among youth and young adults, it is a key indicator of political engagement. Several studies have found a strong correlation between voting and other forms of civic engagement such as community organizing and protesting. In fact, many of these other indicators of civic engagement are down as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".