The Stalled Realignment: Quebec’s Party System After the 2003 Provincial Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2 In the year or so leading up to the provincial election of April 14, 2003, a number of signs pointed to the possibility of a “great realignment of political parties ” in Quebec (Pinard, 2003; Tu Thanh Ha, 2002). A series of public opinion polls in 2002 indicated that a solid majority of francophones in Quebec—58 percent in May 2002—wanted Mario Dumont’s Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ) to form the next government. Electoral support for the relatively new party spiked to nearly 40 percent in October 2002 (see Figure 1). Dumont himself was the overwhelming favourite among francophones as the “best ” premier of the province: 46 percent (40 percent of the total population) ranked Dumont as the best premier, versus 26 percent for the PQ’s Bernard Landry and 16 percent for Jean Charest of the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP).1 Some observers believed that this meteoric rise in the ADQ’s popularity was more than the simple by-product of voters turning away from the two parties that had dominated provincial politics since the 1970s, the PQ and the PLQ, and saying “a pox on both their houses. ” Nor could the surge in support for “Mario Dumont’s team ” be
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".