Publications

2025

1. Policy & Politics

   Why Did the Influence of Experts Erode during the COVID-19 Pandemic?

   Antoine Lemor, M. Alejandra Costa, Louis-Robert Beaulieu-Guay, et Éric Montpetit

   Policy & Politics, 2025

   Abs DOI

   In the face of protracted crises like climate change or pandemics, the influence of expert scientific projections on public policy is crucial yet evolves over time. This study offers an empirical demonstration of a previously fragmented theory: the diminishing influence of scientific projections on policy over time. Leveraging a comprehensive mixed-method analysis, we unveil the intricate interplay between expert projections, policy stringency, and public support during COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific projections that put forward worst-case scenarios have a considerable impact on policies made in the early stages of a crisis. However, as these catastrophic projections instill a sense of fatalism as the crisis lasts, they inadvertently lead to diminished public support for both the policies and the scientific projections themselves. The implications of these findings for scientists and experts are discussed, highlighting the importance of adapting projections and knowledge communication strategies as the crisis unfolds.

2. À paraître

   Science, jugement humain et décisions de politiques publiques en temps de COVID-19

   Éric Montpetit, et Antoine Lemor

   dans Faire preuve : comment nos sociétés distinguent le vrai du faux, par Prud’homme, Julien et Kao, Molly, Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2025

   Abs

   This chapter explores the relationship between science, human judgment, and public policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. It highlights that, contrary to a prevailing rhetoric that policy decisions can be strictly science-based, the reality is far more complex. Political decisions are influenced by a blend of scientific evidence and human judgment, which includes instincts, beliefs, and attitudes. The chapter examines how scientific evidence is used in policymaking and emphasizes that such use is inevitably filtered through political debate and human judgment. Key examples from the COVID-19 crisis illustrate this interplay. Early in the pandemic, despite limited knowledge about the virus, drastic measures like lockdowns were implemented, influenced by both scientific evidence and political judgment. Disagreements among scientists, such as those between John Ioannidis and Marc Lipsitch, further underscore how different interpretations of evidence can lead to varying policy recommendations. These disagreements often stem from differing risk perceptions and underlying beliefs, demonstrating that even within the scientific community, human judgment plays a crucial role. The chapter concludes that separating policy decisions from their political and psychological contexts is impractical. Instead, it advocates for recognizing and valuing the role of human judgment in policymaking, acknowledging that science and politics are intertwined in complex ways

3. Accepté

   Mesurer la pénétration des idées d’extrême droite dans les discours gouvernementaux : une analyse des déclarations de politique générale (1959-2024)

   Tristan Boursier, et Antoine Lemor

   Revue française de science politique, 2025

   Abs

   This study analyzes the diffusion of far-right ideas in the general policy statements of French Prime Ministers (1959–2024) using Natural Language Processing (NLP) methods. It develops and introduces the Far-Right Ideological Score (SIED), a quantitative indicator designed to measure the proportion of far-right ideas within political discourse. The results highlight three significant periods: a peak during the Algerian War (1959–1961), a decline following May 1968, and a steady rise from the 1970s onward, intensifying after 2005. The study reveals a cross-party diffusion of far-right ideas, particularly driven by center and right-wing forces. The concepts of co-optation and metapolitics are used to interpret these findings

2024

1. En Révision

   Beyond Evidence: How Framing Shapes Public Health Policies During Health Crises

   Antoine Lemor, et Éric Montpetit

   Policy Studies Journal, 2024

   Abs

   This study investigates how framing, evidence, and the roles of scientists and political decisionmakers in policymaking influence public health policy decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec and Sweden. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset of press conference transcripts, we apply natural language processing (NLP) to assess the impact of different framings on suppression and mitigation policies. Our analysis reveals that framing affects policy decisions, often independent of evidence. In Quebec, where political decisionmakers were central, a Dangerous framing, which emphasizes the severe health threats of COVID-19, is associated with an increase in stringent suppression policies, even in the absence of strong evidence. In contrast, Sweden’s policy process, characterized by scientific autonomy, required high levels of evidence for the Dangerous framing to impact suppression policies. A Moderate framing, balancing societal benefits and virus risks, promoted mitigation policies when supported by strong evidence, with variations between jurisdictions. These findings illustrate that the framing of a health crisis can be as influential as evidence, with distinct implications for the role of political and scientific actors. This study contributes to public policy literature by highlighting the relationship between framing, evidence, and the differentiated roles of policymakers and scientists in the policymaking process during health emergencies.

2. Governance

   Networks Dynamics in Public Health Advisory Systems: A Comparative Analysis of Scientific Advice for COVID-19 in Belgium, Quebec, Sweden and Switzerland

   Antoine Lemor, Éric Montpetit, Shoghig Téhinian, Clarisse Ven Belleghem, Steven Eichenberger, PerOla Öberg, Frédéric Varone, David Aubin, et Jean-Louis Denis

   Governance, 2024

   Abs DOI

   This study presents a dual-method approach to systematically analyze public health advisory networks during the COVID-19 pandemic across four jurisdictions: Belgium, Quebec, Sweden, and Switzerland. Using network analysis inspired by egocentric analysis and a subsystems approach adapted to public health, the research investigates network structures and their openness to new actors and ideas. The findings reveal significant variations in network configurations, with differences in density, centralization, and the role of central actors. The study also uncovers a relation between network openness and its structural attributes, highlighting the impact of network composition on the flow and control of expert advice. These insights into public health advisory networks contribute to understanding the interface between scientific advice and policymaking, emphasizing the importance of network characteristics in shaping the influence of expert advisors. The article underscores the relevance of systematic network descriptions in public policy, offering reflections on expert accountability, information diversity, and the broader implications for democratic governance.

3. Policy and Society

   Exploring the Role of Uncertainty, Emotions and Scientific Discourse during the COVID-19 Pandemic

   Antoine Lemor, et Éric Montpetit

   Policy and Society, 2024

   Abs DOI

   This article examines the interplay between uncertainty, emotions, and scientific discourse in shaping COVID-19 policies in Quebec, Canada. Through the application of natural language processing (NLP) techniques, indices were developped to measure sentiments of uncertainty among policymakers, their negative sentiments, and the prevalence of scientific statements. The study reveals that while sentiments of uncertainty led to the adoption of stringent policies, scientific statements and the evidence they conveyed were associated with a relaxation of such policies, as they offered reassurance and mitigated negative sentiments. Furthermore, the findings suggest that scientific statements encouraged stricter policies only in contexts of high uncertainty. This research contributes to the theoretical understanding of the interplay between emotional and cognitive dynamics in health crisis policymaking. It emphasizes the need for a nuanced understanding of how science may be used in the face of. uncertainty, especially when democratic processes are set aside. Methodologically, it demonstrates the potential of NLP in policy analysis.

2022

1. Edward Elgar Publishing

   Listening to science in policy design: the contrasting cases of Quebec and Sweden during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic

   Antoine Lemor, Louis-Robert Beaulieu-Guay, PerOla Öberg, et Éric Montpetit

   dans Research Handbook of Policy Design, par Peters, B. Guy et Fontaine, Guillaume, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022

   Abs DOI

   The COVID-19 pandemic has given science, scientific information, and health experts a prominent role in public policy design. However, political decisions are rarely automatically derived from scientific information or expertise. Political decisions are made of complex set of choices, balancing preferences and objectives that are sometimes difficult to reconcile. Moreover, all scientific information entails a degree of uncertainty, especially when dealing with a new problem like COVID-19. In turn, this uncertainty can be a source of discomfort when information is needed to inform a public policy decision. Finally, the interpretation of scientific information can be influenced by elements of contexts, institutional structures, and decision makers’ own risk assessment and tolerance. Thus, similar information can be perceived and used differently by policy designers. In this chapter, we focus on the role of information selection and processing in policy design by studying school closure decisions during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Faced with similar infection curves, Sweden and Quebec have made radically different decisions about school closures. While on March 1st 2020 Sweden decided to keep its schools open, on March 13th, Quebec decided to close them down. By drawing from public statements in the two jurisdictions between January and June 2021, we argue that the Swedish authorities have favoured information from the World Health Organization, whereas Quebec has relied more on foreign experiences. The interpretation of this different information and the attitudes towards risk and uncertainty have led the Swedish and Quebec governments to make radically different choices.