MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550283092 · doi:10.3138/ijcs.53.25

Testing the Themes in the New Brunswick Voting Behaviour Literature: An Analysis of the 2014 Provincial Election Study

2016· article· en· W2550283092 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joanna Everitt, Joseph Sanford

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Canadian Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingUnderpinningLogistic regressionPolitical scienceGeneral electionVoting behaviorSurvey data collectionBlock (permutation group theory)PsychologySocial psychologyPoliticsStatisticsLawEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines voting behaviour and support for the Liberal and Progressive Conservative parties in New Brunswick. Using a logistic regression analysis, a block recursive model, and data from the 2014 New Brunswick Provincial Election Survey, we empirically tested common beliefs about party support in this province. We conclude that unlike arguments found in the literature, these two parties drew their support from very different groups of individuals who have distinct values and beliefs underpinning their voting decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207