Le vote ouvrier et l’élection de Donald Trump : histoire et limites du discours populiste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse le vote de la classe ouvrière blanche en faveur de Donald Trump en 2016 dans les États du nord-est et du Midwest en désindustrialisation. Si ce phénomène s’explique par les évolutions récentes de la politique américaine, cet article entend démontrer que la désaffection des classes ouvrières pour le Parti démocrate intervient au terme d’un long processus historique, le vote en faveur de Donald Trump étant le produit d’une rhétorique populiste ancienne et régulièrement utilisée par les élites politiques au cours du XXe siècle. L’article met l’élection de 2016 en perspective avec un moment clé de l’histoire politique américaine, entre la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et le début des années 1970, où la classe ouvrière blanche dans des villes comme Detroit, Chicago ou Cleveland commença à détourner du libéralisme inspiré du New Deal avant de constituer l’un des piliers de la « nouvelle majorité » républicaine que Richard Nixon chercha à constituer en 1972.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".