MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1598536668 · doi:10.7202/044819ar

La mobilité ethnique intergénérationnelle des enfants de moins de cinq ans chez les populations autochtones, Canada, 1996 et 2001

2010· article· fr· W1598536668 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alexandre Boucher, Norbert Robitaille, Éric Guimond

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration and Labor Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAboriginal Affairs Northern Dev CanadaUniversité de MontréalInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grâce aux données provenant des recensements canadiens de 1996 et 2001, nous avons étudié la mobilité ethnique intergénérationnelle (la transmission ou non de l’identité ethnique d’un parent à son enfant) chez les populations autochtones. Dans l’ensemble, les populations autochtones tirent profit de la mobilité ethnique intergénérationnelle au détriment de la population non autochtone. Un facteur déterminant de ce phénomène est le type d’union au sein duquel vit l’enfant : union endogame ou exogame. Alors que la mobilité ethnique intergénérationnelle est presque inexistante au sein des unions endogames, il en est tout autrement lorsqu’il est question d’unions exogames. Pour le cas particulier de l’exogamie autochtone — non autochtone, l’identité ethnique d’un enfant est, le plus souvent, une identité autochtone. Ainsi, l’exogamie entre Autochtones et non-Autochtones profite beaucoup plus aux effectifs des populations autochtones qu’à ceux de la population non autochtone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicMigration and Labor DynamicsFrench-language works237,207