MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1717630865 · doi:10.7202/1028421ar

La diversité et la complexité des jeunes (16-24 ans) inscrits à l’éducation des adultes au Québec : enquête et essai de typologie

2015· article· fr· W1717630865 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Julie Marcotte, Aude Villatte, Geneviève Lévesque

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue des sciences de l éducation · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, les dispositifs institutionnels en éducation des adultes jouent un rôle majeur dans la qualification des jeunes qui quittent l’école secondaire sans avoir obtenu leur diplôme. L’accroissement de l’effectif 16-24 ans et, surtout, l’hétérogénéité de ce groupe sur le plan de leurs caractéristiques et de leurs besoins se positionnent parmi les défis contemporains auxquels est confrontée la formation générale des adultes. Cet article présente une recherche réalisée auprès de 386 jeunes âgés de 16 à 24 ans qui fréquentent un centre d’éducation des adultes au Québec. Notre étude propose une analyse de classes latentes qui permet de fragmenter l’hétérogénéité des jeunes en quatre profils types. Cette méthode statistique a donc permis de dégager une typologie dont les caractéristiques distinctives reflètent tantôt les enjeux actuels inhérents au passage à l’âge adulte, tantôt les empreintes consécutives à une trajectoire de vie fragilisante. Finalement, les éléments de discussion mettent en relief les besoins respectifs de ces quatre profils en matière de services complémentaires.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.421
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.026 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue des sciences de l éducationSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207