MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503309639 · doi:10.7202/017748ar

Questionner la transition de la fécondité en milieu rural africain : les apports d’une démarche longitudinale et institutionnelle

2008· article· fr· W1503309639 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Valérie Delaunay, Agnès Adjamagbo, Richard Lalou

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Située au coeur du bassin arachidier du Sénégal, la zone d’étude de Niakhar est tout à fait représentative des régions rurales sahéliennes caractérisées par le maintien de modèles de fécondité élevée. En effet, les grandes tendances de la fécondité observées grâce au Système de Suivi Démographique de l’IRD font état du maintien des descendances nombreuses (environ huit enfants par femme); elles révèlent par ailleurs une augmentation des naissances et des grossesses avant le premier mariage. Pour comprendre les mécanismes sur lesquels se fondent les comportements de fécondité dans cette région, nous proposons d’explorer la pertinence de l’approche institutionnelle, telle que décrite dans les travaux de Mc Nicoll (1982), Grégory et Piché (1985), Piché et Poirier (1995), ou encore Lesthaeghe (1989). Ainsi, la mise en perspective de l’évolution du système de production agricole, des conditions environnementales et du fonctionnement de l’organisation sociale permet de mettre en lumière le sens que les populations de cette région donnent aux comportements démographiques et, en particulier, aux pratiques relatives à la fécondité.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.235

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207