Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the beginning of their mandate, the Harper Conservatives made several attempts to convince Quebecers to support their government. They gave Quebec a voice at the UNESCO and adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. They also promised to rectify the fiscal imbalance and to not use the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions. Yet, these attempts failed to translate into increased electoral support for the Conservatives. Given this puzzle, the paper analyzes trends in public opinion to identify what measures promoted by the Conservative government were supported by Quebecers, and on what issues they are in disagreement. The paper also analyzes the levels of satisfaction with the federal government and democracy among Quebecers during the time period. The results show that on most issues, Quebecers have become more distant from the Conservative government’s position over the years. On issues such as scrapping the gun registry and the place of Quebec in the federation, Quebecers disagreed more strongly with their federal government in 2011 than in 2006. Likewise, their satisfaction towards both the federal government and democracy declined during this time period. These trends explain why the Conservatives have been unable to win more votes in Quebec despite their commitment to open federalism.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".