MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506516634 · doi:10.7202/1012978ar

Mesurer la mobilité sans registre de population en France au xixe siècle : l’apport des registres de successions à l’étude des migrations des ruraux

2012· article· fr· W1506516634 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabrice Boudjaaba

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Malgré le développement de l’État et de la statistique administrative au xixe siècle, la France ne dispose pas de registres de population comptabilisant les entrées et les sorties dans ses communes, ce qui complique singulièrement l’étude de la mobilité des populations. À partir d’une source originale, sans lien apparent avec la question des migrations, le registre de mutation par décès qui enregistre la valeur et la composition des patrimoines des défunts, cet article explore une autre voie pour mesurer la migration depuis un espace donné au xixe siècle. Cette source qui indique le lieu de résidence des héritiers au moment du décès du parent permet en effet d’analyser la mobilité géographique d’une génération à l’autre tout en tenant compte d’un certain nombre de paramètres tels que la taille des fratries, le sexe et le niveau de fortune des individus, etc. S’appuyant sur un échantillon rural breton, l’auteur présente la source et ses potentialités, puis met en évidence le développement et la géographie des migrations des enfants de cultivateurs, le rôle de certaines configurations familiales, notamment la taille de la fratrie, pour comprendre l’émigration d’un territoire rural.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207