MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965216568 · doi:10.7202/600861ar

La disponibilité des diplômés universitaires sur le marché du travail québécois

2008· article· fr· W1965216568 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Edmund Davenport

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceDemographic economicsHumanitiesArtEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Entre 1971 et 1981, il s’est produit une dégradation sensible de la situation du Québec, relativement à celle du Canada, en ce qui touche le nombre des diplômés universitaires au sein de la main-d’oeuvre. Des quatre grandes régions du Canada, c’est le Québec qui accusait le plus lent taux de croissance, tant par le nombre absolu de diplômés que par le nombre relatif de diplômés par millier de personnes dans la population active. Cette diminution relative de l’offre de diplômés universitaires au sein de la main-d’oeuvre québécoise avait deux causes. En premier lieu, les universités québécoises ont octroyé un nombre relativement faible de diplômés par rapport à la population d’âge universitaire. En second lieu, un nombre important de diplômés universitaires ont quitté la province. En effet, pour la période 1975-1981, on estime l’émigration nette des diplômés à quelgue 21 200, soit 19,6 % des diplômes conférés au cours de cette période. Étant donné l’influence qu’exercent les universitaires sur la croissance économique, dans les industries de haute technologie en particulier, il serait souhaitable que le gouvernement du Québec reconsidère les réductions qu’il se propose d’apporter aux budgets des universités.

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)0.003
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207