MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415232303 · doi:10.1080/17457289.2025.2568860

The last-minute voter: age and time of voting in Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4415232303 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Holly Ann Garnett, Sean Grogan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and Parties · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicElectoral Systems and Political Participation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVotingGovernment (linguistics)Period (music)Ranked voting system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article contributes to the literature on the “costs of voting” by examining when an individual decides to vote, in terms of both the date they cast their ballot and the time of day they may visit a polling station. There may be important variations in voters’ choices of when to vote, with implications for a variety of lines of research, including for the efficacy of convenience voting mechanisms to truly make voting easier for those least likely to already vote; the impact on a voter’s experience of the election; the consequences for election campaigns and the deliberative environment; and the impacts on election administration and planning. This article contributes to this research using a new dataset of individual-level voter information during the 2022 Ontario provincial general election, using original voter-level participation data, provided to the researchers by Elections Ontario (the provincial electoral management body), combined with census data at the dissemination area level. This article demonstrates how certain socio-demographic and geographic characteristics, notably a voter’s age, relates to choices of when a voter will cast their ballot. This work broadens our understanding of the experience of electors in this sub-national context and the decision of when to cast a ballot.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Elections Public Opinion and PartiesSame topicElectoral Systems and Political ParticipationFrench-language works237,207