Importance of Voting at the Municipal Level: The Seniors’ Voices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it