AFFECT CHANGE: THE INCREASED INFLUENCE OF ATTITUDINAL FACTORS ON CANADIANS ’ SUPPORT FOR LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from the Canadian Election Surveys, this study considers Canadian public opinion on legalizing same-sex marriage with the aim of trying to account for the dramatic shift from minority-support to majority-support for such marriages that occurred between 1997 and 2004. Specifically, the study examines the statistical associations of those sociological factors identified in Canadian research and public opinion polls as influencing Canadians ’ opinions on legal same-sex marriage. Evidence is presented that, contrary to what public opinion polls suggest, opinions on same-sex marriage can no longer be justifiably ascribed to demographic origins. In large part, the majority-support that Canadian citizens held by 2004 for legal samesex marriage came about as the result of shifts in attitudes, values, and beliefs, rather than because of demographic factors. Data also suggest that over the study period there was a decrease in the influence that traditional moral values played in forming opinions toward same-sex marriage, and an even larger increase in the influence played by one’s feelings towards gays and lesbians. In fact, this particular change was found to be a fundamental driver behind the dramatic shift to majority-support for legal same-sex marriage that Canadians came to hold by 2004.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".