Answering only to legitimate laws : societal triggers towards the sovereign citizen movement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sovereign citizens are known for their unique worldviews, but what causes one to subscribe to such ideology? Previous studies have identified the movement's historical roots of the movement in economic hardships and racism. This study contributes to existing scholarship by approaching the subject from the angle of political trust and consequently contextualizing the trust literature to the sovereign citizen movement. Correspondingly, this study theorizes that economic hardship, pre-disposed racism, and the location of residence induce one’s ideological affinity towards the sovereign citizen's movement. It proposes three corresponding hypotheses, which are tested using randomized survey experiments. It compares the differences in means between the control and the various treatment groups to estimate the average causal effect (ACE). It successfully rejects one null hypothesis: economic hardship is a meaningful inducer of ideological affinity to the movement, not racism. Additionally, location also appears to provide additional insights with strong reactions to treatments from suburbanites, but the overall relationship is not substantial. The study ends by discussing the implications of the results and identifying the study's limitations, mainly the bias due to unrepresentative samples.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".