MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538916172 · doi:10.4000/formationemploi.1591

Les contrats aidés : quelles marges de manœuvre pour les bénéficiaires ?

2007· article· fr· W1538916172 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFormation emploi · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMicrosemi (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir du panel des bénéficiaires de la politique de l’emploi de la Dares (Direction de l’animation de la recherche, des études et des statistiques du ministère chargé de l’Emploi), deux analyses ont été réalisées selon l’approche par les « capacités ». Une première analyse considère les marges de manœuvre des bénéficiaires et une seconde les perceptions de leurs conditions de vie. Comparer les perceptions des bénéficiaires à celles d’une population témoin permet de mieux évaluer l’impact des dispositifs. Globalement, les contrats aidés améliorent les marges de manœuvre des bénéficiaires en termes de conditions de vie. Par ailleurs, le contrat initiative emploi (CIE) est mieux perçu que le contrat emploi solidarité (CES), mais ce dernier permet cependant davantage que le CIE de « se sentir utile » et de « reprendre confiance en soi ».

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.337 · 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