Is Quebec independence still key in making sense of Canadian elections? A longitudinal analysis (2000–2021)
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
The issue of Quebec independence was, until recently, considered the most important factor motivating Quebeckers’ vote choice in federal elections. However, the conventional wisdom has shifted and now holds, especially since 2011, that the explanatory power of the issue of Quebec secession would have decreased over time and would no longer be deemed as one of the few decisive determinants of citizens’ vote choice calculus. We provide the first longitudinal analysis of the impact of Quebec independence in federal elections using the Canadian Election Study from 2000 to 2021. Our findings show that, as expected, attitudes toward Quebec secession in explaining citizens’ vote choice were more important at the beginning of the twenty-first century, although only when comparing the discrepancy between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Between 2006 and 2021, the importance of Quebec independence has remained stable and key in explaining electoral outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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