MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1521904631 · doi:10.7202/045457ar

Ignace Olazabal (dir.), Que sont les baby-boomers devenus ? Aspects sociaux d’une génération vieillissante, Québec, Éditions Nota Bene, 2009, 295 p. (Santé et société.)

2010· article· fr· W1521904631 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charles Fleury

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for International Peace and Security
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersHumanitiesPolitical scienceArtSociologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ignace Olazabal (dir.), Que sont les baby-boomers devenus ? Aspects sociaux d’une génération vieillissante, Québec, Éditions Nota Bene, 2009, 295 p. (Santé et société.). An article from journal Recherches sociographiques (Volume 51, Number 3, septembre–décembre 2010, pp. 343-615), on Érudit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.022

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiques→Same topicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→