MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391051768 · doi:10.1177/00323217231223400

Minority Affirmations and the Boundaries of the Nation: Evidence From Québec

2024· article· en· W4391051768 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Colin Scott, Antoine Bilodeau, Audrey Gagnon, Luc Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitical Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial and Intergroup Psychology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)Ingroups and outgroupsOutgroupEthnic groupSalientSocial psychologySociologyNationalismConstruct (python library)Gender studiesPsychologyPolitical scienceLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultural criteria, like language skills and values, are salient features of nationalism discourse, reflecting imagined boundaries that separate ingroup from outgroup member when thinking about the nation. Despite their salience, the relationship between cultural membership criteria and other civic (attainable) or ethnic (ascriptive) national boundaries, along with their implications for intergroup relations, is contested. Using surveys from N = 6448 majority group members in the Canadian province of Québec, we argue cultural boundaries are empirically distinct from civic and ethnic ones. Cultural and civic criteria are both prominent prerequisites for membership into the Québécois national community, but cultural criteria show markedly divergent relationships with outgroup attitudes. The results underline the importance of conceptualizing cultural boundaries as a distinct set of national membership criteria and question the construct validity of blended ethnocultural boundary measures or approaches that aggregate civic and cultural criteria together as equally “attainable” markers of national membership.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitical StudiesSame topicSocial and Intergroup PsychologyFrench-language works237,207