Is Quebec Still a Catholically Distinct Society within Canada? An Examination of Catholic Affiliation and Mass Attendance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Quiet Revolution, Quebec has significantly transformed its relationship to Catholicism. Some commentators have even gone as far as discussing an increasingly important secularization within the province. Yet, an examination of the main indicators of religiosity in Quebec provides evidence for the permanence of a certain cultural Catholicism. However, this cultural Catholicism is tending to gradually fade over time, giving place to the reconfiguration of the regime of religiosity. Meanwhile, in the rest of Canada, Catholicism tends to grow, primarily due to the immigrant population in recent years. In this general context, is Quebec still a “Catholically distinct” society? To answer this question, the authors use a series of logistic models to examine the main determinants of Catholic affiliation and Mass attendance. Age, place of birth and mother tongue emerge as principal determinants of religious affiliation and practice. Based on the findings from these models, the authors show that Quebec remains a Catholically distinct society in comparison with other Canadian regions. However, the gap between this province and the rest of Canada seems to have been increasingly fading, at least over the last thirty years.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".