Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we seek to unpack some of the nuances about what motivated Canadian Arab youth to vote in the 2015 election and how their decisions inform the wider literature. How does the voting behaviour of Canadian Arab youth during the 2015 election support or challenge mainstream academic theories about ethno-cultural youth political decision-making and voting preferences? What concepts might help us better understand this rising demographic, its political animus, and its significance for Canadian politics? Of great interest in this paper is the investigation into whether voter apathy historically reported for young people and ethno-cultural communities continued to hold in the 2015 election. This paper critically interrogates what the 2015 federal election meant to Canadian Arab youth. We identify the predominant political inclinations of and issues for young Arab Canadians through the findings of structured focus groups. Our findings indicate that Arab Canadian youth were highly engaged with the issues of the election and apathy was the exception rather than the norm. Canadian Arab youth’s ethno-cultural background does explain their voting behaviour during the 2015 election, but bread and butter issues are also a concern for many young people.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".