Populists without parties: are left-wing and right-wing populists in Quebec disengaged citizens?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on populism is vast, with most studies exploring this phenomenon in contexts where populist parties play a central role in steering populist ideas and mobilizing their supporters.Yet, populist ideas can be supported by a widespread share of the population even in the absence of populist parties.This study investigates and compares how leftand right-wing populists engage with politics when no populist party represents their voice in the political system.Relying on a survey of 5633 respondents in Quebec (Canada), we examine how support for populist ideas relates to different forms of political participation.Our findings indicate that left-wing populists are less likely to vote than other citizens, specifically at the provincial level.This finding, however, does not hold for their right-wing counterparts.Moreover, right-wing populists exhibit a greater propensity to engage in non-and semi-institutional forms of action that enable them to express their grievances directly to elected officials.With these forms of action not observed among left-wing populists, our study points to fundamental differences in the expression of left-and right-wing populisms.Despite these differences, our study indicates that all populists perceive more than other citizens that violence can be a legitimate mean of action.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".