That's my autocrat: Self‐uncertainty elevates support for autocratic leadership during Canada's Freedom Convoy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada's 2022 Freedom Convoy protests and blockades caused significant disruption, and many Canadians advocated for strong, forceful, and even autocratic responses from their government. In democratic nations, autocratic leadership is typically seen as undesirable and receives less support than democratic leadership. However, when group members experience significant identity‐related self‐uncertainty, they may have an accentuated desire for strong, directive leadership to help manage the uncertainty. Canadian participants ( N = 406) reported their level of self‐uncertainty, rated how autocratic they perceived Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to be, reported their level of support for Justin Trudeau, and reported their support for strong responses to the Freedom Convoy. Self‐uncertainty moderated the relationship between leadership style and leader support. Perceived autocratic leadership style predicted significantly less leader support, but this relationship was weakened among participants high in self‐uncertainty, who reported increased support for an autocratic leader. Further, self‐uncertainty predicted a greater desire for a strong leader, willingness to restrict civil liberties, and support for expanded government powers. These results suggest that the typical preference for democratic leadership weakens when self‐uncertainty is elevated. Public significance statement Uncertainty about one's identity lays the groundwork for autocratic leadership to emerge. Elevated self‐uncertainty was associated with a greater desire for a strong leader who is willing to challenge democratic values and practices, a greater willingness to restrict civil liberties, greater support for expanded government powers in response to a national crisis, and greater support for a national leader perceived as autocratic.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".