MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1559260332 · doi:10.3917/riss.177.0457

Le Programme des Centres de données de recherche au Canada

2003· article· fr· W1559260332 on OpenAlex
Gustave Goldmann

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale des sciences sociales · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicData Analysis and Archiving
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Pour relever en partie les défis lancés à la recherche canadienne sur les politiques publiques, un groupe de travail mixte réuni par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines ( crsh ) et Statistique Canada a proposé la création d’un réseau de Centres de données de recherche ( cdr ), qui est né officiellement en décembre 2000 avec l’ouverture du cdr de l’université McMaster, à Hamilton (Ontario). Les cdr se répartissant dans tout le pays, les chercheurs n’ont plus besoin d’aller à Ottawa pour consulter les fichiers de Statistique Canada. L’administration des cdr se conforme néanmoins à toutes les règles de confidentialité établies par la loi canadienne sur la statistique. Les cdr répondent, sur un même site, à une double nécessité : ils facilitent l’accès à des microdonnées détaillées indispensables pour mener certaines recherches essentielles en sciences sociales, tout en garantissant la sécurité et la confidentialité des informations fournies par les Canadiens.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.029 · 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