Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malgré tous les événements qui ont récemment bousculé le panorama électoral québécois, il existe peu d'essais approfondis sur le sujet. Éric Bélanger et Richard Nadeau, deux spécialistes en la matière, viennent ici combler cette lacune en présentant l'enquête la plus fouillée à ce jour sur les électeurs québécois. Leur analyse fera indiscutablement sa marque, car on y brosse un portrait rigoureux du comportement électoral des Québécois. On s'interroge sur leur récent changement de comportement : incident de parcours ou transformation durable du paysage politique au Québec ? Ce livre s'intéresse aux mœurs électorales et se distingue par sa démarche analytique, appuyée par des statistiques révélatrices. Les auteurs offrent d'abord une étude historique des élections provinciales au Québec et incluent une analyse des scrutins de 2007 et de 2008 qui permettra de mieux comprendre la stratégie des partis en lice et l'évolution plus générale du système partisan.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".