MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009909540 · doi:10.1177/036319900102600202

Canadian Fertility Transitions: Quebec and Ontario at the Turn of the Twentieth Century

2001· article· en· W2009909540 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Danielle Gauvreau, Peter Gossage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family History · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFertilityResidenceLiteracyDemographyGeographySample (material)Historical demographyTotal fertility rateDeveloped countryDemographic economicsSociologyPopulationSocioeconomicsFamily planningResearch methodologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article uses nominal data from the Canadian Families Project national sample to analyze and compare fertility in Canada’s two largest provinces at the turn of the twentieth century. The authors argue that material and cultural factors must be considered if similarities and differences in reproductive behavior between Quebec and Ontario are to be understood. They use regression models to identify the independent influence of factors such as religion, language, occupation, class, urban versus rural residence, and literacy on marital child-woman ratios in the two provinces. Fertility levels in Quebec were about 50 percent higher than those in Ontario, where a very conspicuous downward trend had begun by the 1870s. But Quebec fertility in this period was not as monolithically high as some authors—and much of the province’s popular culture—would suggest. Nor did Quebec fail entirely to “turn the contraceptive corner” in the decades after 1871.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Family HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207