MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1515340279 · doi:10.7202/010287ar

Trop de famille et trop peu d’enfants : la fécondité en Italie depuis 1960

2004· article· fr· W1515340279 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Massimo Livi Bacci, Silvana Salvini

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les jeunes Italiens ne quittent pas facilement leur famille, car elle leur offre a la fois protection, confort et liberté. S'ils partent pour former un couple, ils choisissent une relation stable, presque invariablement sanctionnée, tôt ou tard, par le mariage. Comme ils ne décident d'avoir des enfants qu'après avoir obtenu diplôme, emploi et logement convenable, l'apparition d'un « syndrome de l'ajournement » concentre les décisions de procréation dans une tranche d'âge qui s'amenuise. La cohabitation prolongée des jeunes adultes avec leurs parents et la limitation des naissances découlent logiquement de ce que l'on a appelé le « familisme italien », qui consiste à maximiser l'utilité de la famille, identifiée avec l'utilité individuelle. La faible fécondité était aussi bien adaptée à l'austérité des années 1990, car elle permettait aux familles de protéger leur niveau de vie. En outre, les transferts sociaux destinés aux jeunes Italiens sont parmi les plus, faibles en Europe. Il sera intéressant de voir si l'amélioration de la situation économique contribuera à renverser les tendances récentes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207