Between Decentralization and Asymmetry: Explaining Preferences toward the Division of Power in Canada
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
Abstract In most federations, the division of power between central and subnational governments represents an important cleavage dividing voters and structuring party systems. Yet we lack a robust body of research regarding individuals’ preferences for different forms of devolved decision-making such as decentralization and asymmetrical federalism. This article contributes to this research agenda by analyzing the effects of identity and grievances on public opinion toward the division of powers in Canada. Leveraging four waves of the Confederation of Tomorrow survey, we find that respondents who identify predominantly with their province are more likely to prefer decentralization and asymmetrical federalism, whereas those who hold grievances against the federation prefer decentralization. Studying provincial variations in the impact of our main variables, we point to the role of the political context by showing that in certain provinces, the political mobilization of grievances strengthens the relationship between provincial identity and support for decentralization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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