Canadian Election Study, 2004-2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the Canadian Federal Election held on Monday June 28, 2004, the Liberal Party formed a minority government. Telephone surveys, conducted during the campaign and after the election with a random sample of Canadians, provide data that can be used to help explain the election outcome. Within 17 months, Canadians again went to the polls and the result of the January 23, 2006 vote was a second minority government, but under the leadership of the Conservative Party. Efforts were made to interview the respondents to the 2004 survey again for the 2006 survey and about one-half of the 2004 survey respondents also answered the 2006 survey. These re-interviews provide a panel or longitudinal sample component where a respondent's answers to questions in the first survey can be compared to those of the second survey. Many of the questions asked in 2004 were repeated in the 2006 survey. The remaining respondents to the 2006 survey were a random sample of Canadians. The 2008 Canadian Election Study consists of a survey with nearly 4500 eligible voters conducted during the second half of the election campaign. 3689 of these respondents completed a post-election survey as well. 1238 respondents who had participated in the 2004-2006 panel study were also interviewed after the election. All of the interviews were conducted by telephone. The final component of the study was a self-administered mail-back survey completed by 1939 respondents. The 2011 Canadian Election Study consists of 4 waves. Note that each survey wave is a different questionnaire: CPS is the Campaign Period Survey (by telephone), PES is the Post-Election Survey (by telephone), MBS is the Mailback Survey, and WEB is the final Web-based survey.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.006 |
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".