A Liberal Partisan? A Study on Canadian Visible Minorities’ Partisan Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using survey data drawn from the 2014 Provincial Diversity Project, this thesis provides a more comprehensive look at visible minority (VM) Canadians’ federal partisan preferences compared to other Canadians. My findings show that even in 2014, VMs are more likely than other Canadians to identify with the Liberal party instead of other parties. \n \n\tAdditionally, this thesis explores the factors explaining VMs’ partisan attitudes by examining social, attitudinal, and ethnic factors’ influence on partisan preferences. In particular, I assess the idea of Liberal issue ownership over topics of diversity by testing the effects of opinions on multiculturalism and ethnic consciousness, or one’s attachment to their ethnic community, in influencing Liberal support. My findings show that while the symbolic effects of multiculturalism could not explain VMs’ preferences, ethnic consciousness is key to understanding VMs’ partisan attitudes. Moreover, I conclude that while VMs’ Liberal attitudes are shaped by distinct factors, those shaping VMs’ Conservative attitudes are characterised by considerable convergence with the existing dynamics found among other Canadians. \n \n\tLastly, this thesis goes beyond the monolithic limitations of the VM category and examines the heterogeneity found within that category by looking at the cases of Chinese-Canadians and VMs of Muslim faith.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".