Youth’s low presence in parliament: the perspective of candidates and elected representatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is one of many representative democracies with low youth representation in parliament of the age cohorts 30 years or under, 35 years or under, and 40 years or under. While most research tries to examine structural- or party-level factors responsible for youth’s low presence in politics, our study is interested in politicians’ perspectives. Are candidates and elected officials aware of youth’s low presence in the Canadian House of Commons? Do they find this dearth of representation problematic, and if so, what remedies do they suggest to alleviate the situation? We try to answer these questions through original survey research of candidates and elected representatives of the 2019 and 2021 Canadian general elections. Our results reveal interesting patterns. Most of the surveyed are aware that youth representation is lacking behind youth’s distributive share of the population in Canada. However, only a minority of the survey respondents finds this problematic. Interestingly, there is also not enough support for proactive measures such as youth quotas or term limits to increase youth representation in the House of Commons.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".