MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031337003 · doi:10.7202/600811ar

Application des tests statistiques à des populations exhaustives : l’exemple de la mortalité

2009· article· fr· W2031337003 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Norbert Robitaille

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article est une réflexion concernant la pertinence d’appliquer des tests statistiques à des mesures fondées sur des populations exhaustives. Il appuie cette réflexion sur l’ensemble de Sainte-Lucie, petite île des Antilles pour laquelle on a observé de 1971 à 1975 la série de décès et de taux de mortalité suivante : 1971 : 796 (7,75%), 1972 : 947 (9,12%), 1973 : 840 (8,01%), 1974 : 829 (7,82%) et 1975 : 819 (7,65%) décès. La question posée par cet article est de savoir si les fluctuations observées dans les décès et les taux sont le fait du hasard.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.234
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.234
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.382 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicGlobal Health and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207