MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L’impact de la politique conservatrice de réforme du financement des services de garde sur la pauvreté et l’inégalité au Québec

2006· article· fr· W1531545156 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mathieu Audet, Dorothée Boccanfuso, Paul Makdissi

Bibliographic record

VenueInterventions économiques · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPovertyWelfare economicsEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le présent article, nous proposons une analyse préliminaire de la réforme de politique proposée par le gouvernement conservateur qui consiste à remplacer le financement des services de garde par une subvention annuelle de 1200$ par enfant âgé de moins de 6 ans, versée directement aux parents. Nous analysons l’impact qu’aurait cette politique si le gouvernement du Québec choisissait de diminuer le financement public actuel des services de garde dans le futur. Bien que les effets sur la pauvreté et l’inégalité dans la population en général ne soient pas très importants, ceux-ci prennent de l’ampleur lorsque la population visée par ces politiques est considérée, c’est-à-dire les couples avec enfants et les mères monoparentales. Dans le cas de ces dernières, nous prévoyons des augmentations pouvant aller jusqu’à 60 % de la pauvreté observée si nous utilisons un indice qui capte toutes les dimensions de la pauvreté.

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)0.012
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 score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventions économiquesSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207