MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970494100 · doi:10.7202/600768ar

La mortalité infantile et périnatale au Québec (1965-1974) : importance de l’âge maternel et de la parité

2009· article· fr· W1970494100 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jean‐Marc Bernard

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le développement rapide de la technologie médicale, associée souvent trop hâtivement à l’amélioration de l’état de santé et à la diminution de la mortalité, tend a nous faire oublier l’importance des facteurs extra-médicaux. Tel est le cas des facteurs démographiques dans le domaine de la mortalité infantile et périnatale. La diminution rapide de la natalité au Québec entre 1965 et 1974, accompagnée d’une chute non moins importante de la mortalité infantile et périnatale, nous fournit l’occasion d’illustrer ce phénomène. La baisse de la natalité a résulté en une réduction très marquée des principaux groupes à risque, en terme d’âge maternel et de parité, par rapport à la mortalité périnatale et infantile : soit en terme d’âge maternel, les mères de 34 ans et plus et, en terme de parité, les mères qui ont accouché 4 fois ou plus. Or, la standardisation du taux de mortalité (périnatale) entre les années 1965 et 1974 en fonction de l’âge maternel et de la parité nous permet d’expliquer par les seuls changements survenus dans ces deux variables environ 40 % de la diminution de cette mortalité.

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)0.002
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207