Explaining support for a sovereign Quebec: A collective action frames approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation uses the concept of collective action frames to answer the question of why individuals support or oppose nationalist movements. Specifically, I examine the question of why some Quebecers supported a sovereign Quebec while other Quebecers preferred that Quebec remain part of Canada during the period from 1980 to 1995. My approach to collective action frames emphasizes the central position that values occupy in an individual's identity. Recognizing that people who belong to the same ethnic group will not necessarily have the same values helps to explain why nationalist movements often achieve only partial success in mobilizing members of an ethnic group to support nationalist goals. Using survey data, this dissertation explores the values, the perceptions of injustice, and the perceptions of agency of individual Quebecers and considers how these values and perceptions relate to support for sovereignty. Those Quebecers with more secular, more morally permissive, and more individualistic values tend to support sovereignty, and I argue that such Quebecers often view sovereignty as an opportunity for changing the status quo and creating a better society. Moreover, nationalism fulfills an important function that was largely filled by religion in the past---providing collective status for the group. In addition, this dissertation examines how both supporters and opponents of sovereignty have framed this issue in political discourse. I contend that the movement for sovereignty was remarkably successful in framing the debate in favorable terms during the period from 1980 to 1995. The issues of sovereignty and the constitution dominated Quebec's political debate. Most francophone Quebecers have embraced a Quebec-centered identity, and believe that Quebec should have special powers to protect its French culture and recognition as a distinct society in Canada's Constitution. Therefore, Canada's inability or unwillingness to provide Quebec with such powers and recognition is perceived as an injustice. Finally, most Quebecers seem to view sovereignty as a realistic option for Quebec.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".