MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011075461 · doi:10.7202/021654ar

Évolution du monde rural québécois

2005· article· fr· W2011075461 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Clermont Dugas

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article a pour objets la description de certains aspects de la réalité socio-économique du monde rural des années quatre-vingt et l'appréciation des changements ayant affecté la structure du peuplement depuis le début du siècle. Comme espace rural, on a retenu toutes les localités de 3000 habitants et moins regroupées selon quatre strates de taille. La stratification dimensionnelle a permis de mieux saisir l'hétérogénéité du monde rural et d'évaluer certains effets de taille. Les variables retenues sont l'évolution de la population et des localités de 1911 à 1981, l'évolution des superficies en culture entre 1951 et 1981, les structures d'âge de 1971 et 1981 et les activités économiques de 1981. Parmi les principales conclusions qui se dégagent de cette étude, on peut mentionner le fait que le nombre des petites localités a sans cesse évolué et que la population qui les habite est plus nombreuse aujourd'hui qu'au début du siècle. Il y eut une profonde transition occupationnelle si bien que l'agriculture est complètement absente dans plus de 500 localités de toute taille et qu'elle n'occupe qu'une faible proportion de la main-d'oeuvre active dans les autres. La taille démographique des localités exerce certains effets sur la structure d'âge et la structure occupationnelle.

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)0.001
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207