MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396673002 · doi:10.1111/nana.13017

Linguistic threat: Vote choice, linguistic cues and support for official bilingualism in Quebec

2024· article· en· W4396673002 on OpenAlexaffabout
Evelyne Brie, Catherine Ouellet, Marc André Bodet, Lydia Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueNations and Nationalism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscience of multilingualismIndependence (probability theory)Inclusion (mineral)Political scienceSurvey data collectionFrenchLinguisticsTest (biology)PsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In Canada, federal institutions must provide governmental services to all citizens in the country's two official languages: French and English. This paper uses a survey experiment to test exposure to written English as a determinant of support for official bilingualism in the French‐speaking province of Quebec. The data emanate from an exit poll conducted in two Quebec electoral districts during the 2019 Canadian federal elections (n = 430). Results suggest the existence of heterogeneous experimental effects depending on vote choice. Indeed, Bloc Québécois voters—the federal party most strongly supportive of linguistic rights—are disproportionately supportive of institutional bilingualism when randomly exposed to written English on the survey questionnaire. These results are robust to the inclusion of socio‐demographic and attitudinal control variables, including support for Quebec independence. Our paper bolsters causal claims about the contextual determinants of in‐group favouritism and cultural threat in divided societies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNations and NationalismSame topicPolitical Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207