Analyse de la relation entre le revenu et la mortalité : un commentaire méthodologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La région urbaine de l’Outaouais (Gatineau) a un revenu moyen plus élevé que le Québec urbain; cependant, ses indicateurs de santé sont moins favorables. Cette situation, contraire à ce que l’on retrouve le plus souvent au niveau de la santé des populations, est désignée par l’expression « paradoxe outaouais ». Nous avons pu analyser l’impact des choix méthodologiques sur l’évaluation de la relation entre le revenu et la santé, au niveau de la ville et au niveau du quintile de revenu. Selon que l’unité de référence est le Québec urbain ou la RMR Ottawa-Gatineau, le paradoxe se réalise ou disparaît. Selon la partition utilisée, le gradient de l’espérance de vie ainsi que l’écart entre Ottawa et Gatineau varient de manière appréciable. Nos résultats montrent que les choix méthodologiques jouent un rôle important et doivent par conséquent être faits avec soin.
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 | 0.060 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".