MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577057293 · doi:10.4000/remi.2721

Question ethnique et question religieuse dans le recensement de la population britannique de 2001 : Polémiques et enseignements

2006· article· fr· W1577057293 on OpenAlex
Didier Lassalle

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

VenueRevue européenne de migrations internationales · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’étude de l’évolution de la question ethnique entre les deux derniers recensements britanniques de 1991 et 2001 ainsi que celle de la question religieuse facultative de celui de 2001 montre que la pertinence de ces catégorisations est discutable, qu’elles répondent à des impératifs plus politiques que véritablement sociodémographiques. Cependant, l’analyse des données sociales en fonction des critères d’appartenance ethnique et/ou religieuse permet de mettre clairement en évidence l’existence de discriminations à l’encontre des minorités ethniques dans les domaines clés de l’emploi et du chômage. En outre, les analyses montrent également que les Indiens et les Chinois réussissent mieux leur intégration socioéconomique que les autres minorités grâce à leurs meilleures qualifications. En revanche, les Bangladais, (et les Pakistanais dans une moindre mesure), sont de plus en plus marginalisés, car ils cumulent discrimination ethnique et discrimination religieuse.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.342 · 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