MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038717950 · doi:10.7202/031049ar

Maintenance Agreements for the Elderly: Canada, 1900-1951

2006· article· en· W2038717950 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James G. Snell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty (philosophy)ObligationFamily economyWageBusinessSocial securityProcess (computing)Economic securityEconomic growthLabour economicsEconomicsMarket economyPolitical scienceLawComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maintenance agreements were a traditional mechanism by which the elderly gained economic security for themselves and ensured the continuing viability of the family economy. Over the later decades of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century in Canada, variations to this traditional process developed. The wage-labour opportunities available to young adults altered their dependence on family property, that itself was often changing incharacter. Reduced dependence loweredthe elderly parents' obligation to use the property to sustain the family over succeeding generations, even allowing the elderly to disperse or alienate the property. New forms of property could also be employed to somewhat altered purposes — the property no longer had to sustain an entire family culture and way of life, but simply to maintain its owners. Thus, an age-old custom was adapted by the elderly to meet their needs in circumstances of fundamental economic and social change.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.946

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207