Question ethnique et question religieuse dans le recensement de la population britannique de 2001 : Polémiques et enseignements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".