MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503021105 · doi:10.7202/019491ar

L’établissement français du sang Alpes-Méditerranée, une structure de santé doublée d’un observatoire de la diversité populationnelle marseillaise

2008· article· fr· W1503021105 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Priscilla Duboz, Isabelle Séguy, Gil Bellis, Jacques Chiaroni, Gilles Boëtsch

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBlood donation and transfusion practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les objectifs de cette étude sont : premièrement, de définir la part de la population marseillaise ciblée par l’Établissement français du sang Alpes-Méditerranée (E.F.S. A-M) en tant qu’établissement de santé; deuxièmement, d’évaluer le recouvrement entre la diversité populationnelle observée à Marseille et celle de la population des donneurs de sang marseillais; et troisièmement, de déterminer si l’E.F.S. A-M peut être un observatoire de la diversité populationnelle marseillaise. La population des donneurs de sang marseillais apparaît dans les résultats comme plus jeune et plus féminisée que la population marseillaise. Par ailleurs, si les donneurs de sang étrangers sont nettement sous-représentés, ce sont les dons effectués par leurs enfants qui permettent le recouvrement de la diversité populationnelle. En conclusion, l’E.F.S. A-M est un observatoire original de la population marseillaise, car en reflétant la participation de la population conduite à donner son sang, il permet également l’étude de la participation des générations marseillaises d’origine étrangère à cet acte citoyen qu’est le don de sang en France.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicBlood donation and transfusion practicesFrench-language works237,207