MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1920210105 · doi:10.7202/005131ar

Le nouveau régime de citoyenneté du Canada : investir dans l’enfance

2002· article· fr· W1920210105 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jane Jenson

Bibliographic record

VenueLien social et Politiques · 2002
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'auteure analyse les transformations récentes du régime de citoyenneté canadien hors du Québec, face à la montée de conceptions nouvelles touchant les modes de gouvernement, le rôle de l'État et le partage des responsabilités entre ce dernier, les marchés et les familles. Les trois types de changements examinés concernent les relations intergouvernementales, modifiées par la conclusion de l'Entente-cadre sur l'union sociale de 1999 et la mise en place de la Prestation nationale pour enfants; les schemes de redistribution, qui s'éloignent de l'universalité et ciblent de plus en plus les familles à bas revenus et la petite enfance en vue de leur construire un « filet de sécurité » ; le partage des responsabilités entre l'État et les individus, ces derniers étant décrétés responsables de leur bien-être, tandis que l'État cherche à investir dans les enfants. L'État promeut l'égalité des chances, spécialement pour les enfants, au détriment d'une forme plus large de justice sociale reposant sur l'égalité fondamentale et les droits économiques et sociaux de tous les citoyens.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score0.790

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLien social et PolitiquesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207