A Structural Analysis of Class Voting*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the issue disagree about the reasons for—even the existence of—a low level of class voting in Canada. In order to study class voting, three items must be conceptualized and measured adequately: the class of the voters, the class of the parties, and the structural constraints on political partisanship. Central to our concerns is that the only true leftist party, the New Democrat party (NDP), does not field a candidate in every constituency and is not really a viable party everywhere it does contest the election. Thus, the working classes do not always have the realistic option of voting NDP and research which does not take this into account attenuates the relationship between class and voting. We hypothesize, therefore, that (a) the level of class voting is higher in constituencies in which the NDP is viable and (b) the level of nonvoting among the working classes is higher.where the NDP is not viable. Reconceptualizing class in Marxian terms, our results indicate that class is related to voting and that there is a statistical interaction among class, voting, and the viability of the NDP. Furthermore, nonvoting among the working classes increases in nonviable constituencies and decreases in those constituen-cies where the NDP is viable, indicating that nonvoting may be a class re-sponse similar to voting NDP. Implications of this analysis for other Western democracies are noted. Social class, the principal structural cleavage in Western democracies, has a substantial political importance that typically is reflected in the party sys-tem (Maclver). Alford contended that an association between class and voting choice is "natural and expected. " Rose and Urwin analyzed support for 25 leflist parties and found that 20 of them drew two-thirds or more of their support from the working classes. In fact, Lipset (a) maintained that
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".