From an Agenda to the Other: Environmental Issues Dynamics in Quebec1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is a preliminary work. Please, do not cite without authorization. Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the Social Science Research Council of Canada, the Fonds québécois de recherche sur la société et la culture (scholarship), the Département de science politique of Université Laval, the Association des étudiantes et des étudiants de Laval inscrits aux cycles supérieurs (AELIÉS), the Association des politologues étudiants de l’Université Laval (travel grants) for their financial support (via their scholarship program). They also want to thank Marie-Josée Bédard, Marie-Josée Bouffard, and Jérôme Couture for their comments or support. The authors are responsible for any error or omission. Data available upon request (in SPSS and Stata formats). 1 The salience of environmental issues has continuously and constantly increased in western democracies from the 1970s onward. Whether one focuses on the media, public opinion, advocacy groups or decision-makers, environmental studies are a blooming field for policy analysts. Many political scientists have attempted to explain the dynamics of influence among the media, policy and public agendas with regard to environmental issues. While we
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 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".