The Slow Maturation of Local Democracy: The Evolution of Electoral Parameters at the Municipal Level in Quebec since 1855
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, the evolution of the right to vote, the nomination process, and the frequency and organization of elections have not been the same at the municipal, provincial and federal levels, even though they share the same political foundations. In Quebec, more specifically, there is a clear gap between practices at the municipal level and at higher levels of government. Among the municipalities, statutes have also shifted across time, differing especially between the mid- and late 19th century, and this remains the case today for Montreal and the other municipalities of the province. Not much research has been done on the historical evolution of these differences between the three levels of government, or between Montreal and the other municipalities. In this context, this article engages in an exploratory analysis of the legislation on the subject, including over 20 laws adopted since 1855. Our analysis shows that the democratization of local governance in Quebec has certainly been marked by substantial transformations since the mid-19th century, but also by significant divergences with the other levels of government, and between Montreal and other municipalities. More generally, this exploratory analysis sheds light on the way in which certain contemporary characteristics of the municipal scene, both in Montreal and within other municipalities of Quebec, reflect the weight of the past, allowing us to better grasp the current political dynamics at the local level.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".