Nouveau regard sur les déterminants de l’appui à l’indépendance du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article tente de mesurer les changements possibles survenus dans la structure de l’opinion publique sur la question de l’indépendance du Québec. Plus particulièrement, nous comparons deux modèles théoriques qui ont été au coeur de notre compréhension des appuis à l’indépendance, soit le modèle du choix rationnel associé aux coûts-bénéfices prospectifs de l’indépendance et le modèle socio-psychologique qui met de l’avant les griefs et revendications que le Québec ressent face au régime canadien. Notre étude permet aussi d’évaluer la pertinence de ces modèles à travers les générations entre 2014 et 2024; et de considérer de nouveaux facteurs explicatifs contemporains. Dans l’ensemble, nos résultats suggèrent une surprenante stabilité quant à l’importance des différents facteurs considérés pour comprendre les mécaniques expliquant l’appui ou non à l’indépendance du Québec. Les attitudes populistes, nativistes et autoritaristes apportent aussi un pouvoir explicatif additionnel, quoique limité.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".