Open federalism and the 2006 federal election in Quebec: Did Quebecers accept the olive branch?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to establish whether or not Open Federalism contributed to the rise in the Conservative party"s vote share in Quebec in the 2006 Canadian federal election.Open Federalism represented a fresh, constructive approach to Quebec-Ottawa relations, which had soured considerably since the 1960s.Given the importance of national unity and intergovernmental relations in Quebec politics, there is reason to believe that this campaign proposal motivated many Quebecers to support the Conservatives in 2006.Using data from the Canadian Election Study and the Observatory on Media and Public Policy, this study provides empirical tests of the effects of Open Federalism on voting behaviour in Quebec.It is demonstrated that the proposal did in fact contribute to the Conservative vote share among Quebecers, even once other relevant factors such as the sponsorship scandal, conservative values, and strategic voting are taken into account.Rsum L"objectif de cette tude est de dterminer si le fdralisme d"ouverture a contribu l"augmentation des appuis obtenus par le parti Conservateur l"lection fdrale canadienne de 2006.Le fdralisme d"ouverture symbolisait une approche nouvelle et constructive du rapport entre Qubec et Ottawa, qui a dgnr de manire notable depuis les annes soixante.tant donn l"importance des enjeux de l"unit nationale et des relations intergouvernementales en politique qubcoise, il est raisonnable de croire que cette promesse lectorale pouss un certain nombre de Qubcois appuyer le parti Conservateur en 2006.En utilisant les donnes de l"tude lectorale canadienne et de l"Observatoire sur les mdias et les politiques publiques, il est dmontr que la proposition de fdralisme d"ouverture a influenc le vote des Qubcois en faveur du parti Conservateur, par-del l"effet d"autres facteurs importants tel que le scandale des commandites, les valeurs conservatrices et le vote stratgique.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".