Bibliographic record
Abstract
While municipal elections in Quebec are characterized by low voter turnout, it appears that people over 65 years old are the ones who vote in higher numbers. In fact, this is the case for both federal and provincial elections. However, the lack of individual data on municipal elections does not yet allow us to say that seniors vote more than younger people. This finding invites political scientists to look at the electoral behaviour of individual voters and the importance attached to the act of voting at this level of government. In addition, the majority of studies on elections focus on the behaviours of voters living in large cities such as Montreal or Quebec City. In Quebec, the few studies that have looked at medium size municipality voting behaviour have mainly studied the cities of Quebec City, but not Montreal. Based on 19 interviews conducted with people aged between 65 and 84 and living in one medium size cities, Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, our research illustrates the importance of the exercise of a duty, the access to political information, the proximity of electoral behaviour and the influential role of seniors. According to participants, it is easier to talk to municipal candidates and get to know the person who will become their official representative, compared to the provincial and federal levels where it is more difficult to talk to candidates. Also, their knowledge of the municipal political system is better than when they were younger. While voting is similarly important at each level of government, participants felt that voting at the municipal level is directly relevant to them because of the municipal services but also by the influence they can have on their councillor.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".