MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1510130979 · doi:10.7202/1003585ar

La contribution des immigrants d’origine germanique au peuplement des régions de Lanaudière, de la Mauricie, de la Montérégie, de Chaudière-Appalaches et du Bas-Saint-Laurent

2011· article· fr· W1510130979 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc Adélard Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La population du Québec est issue en grande partie de quelques milliers d’immigrants français qui se sont établis dans la vallée du Saint-Laurent au xviie siècle. Cependant, des pionniers d’autres origines ont aussi contribué au peuplement initial du territoire québécois. Un certain nombre d’entre eux étaient originaires de régions ou pays dont l’allemand était la langue principale. Les plus connus sont sans doute les mercenaires allemands qui ont fait souche au Québec durant le dernier quart du xviiie siècle. À partir de données généalogiques s’étendant sur plus de trois siècles, cette étude vise à retracer ces immigrants d’origine germanique et à mesurer leur contribution au peuplement de cinq régions du Québec (Lanaudière, Mauricie, Montérégie, Chaudière-Appalaches et Bas-Saint-Laurent). Les résultats révèlent la présence d’ancêtres germaniques dans les généalogies de toutes les régions étudiées. Ils représentent entre 0,9 % et 1,5 % de l’ensemble des immigrants identifiés et sont à l’origine d’un peu moins de 1 % des bassins génétiques régionaux mais de 2,7 % des lignées paternelles.

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)0.001
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 score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207