La pauvreté en France et au Québec : une comparaison à l’aide de l’indice multidimensionnel de pauvreté-richesse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article defines a multidimensional poverty indicator which makes it possible to compare, over time and between two countries, the consumption patterns and lifestyle of populations who live in severe or partial poverty. This indicator integrates a purely financial dimension of poverty into a behavioural dimension that is measured by the share of food expense. There are many similar characteristics between the behaviours of French and Québec households. The transversal evolution of budgetary coefficients of goods and services thus reflects the growing mercantilism marking our two societies. Several interesting contradictions between the transversal and temporal evolutions can be observed in two important items - clothing and housing. Moreover, based on the observation of different households in the same period, the evolution of consumption cannot always be forecast without bias. The economic crisis and then the boom period have affected households in a different way during their life cycles, thus intensifying the differences between generations. Lastly, the evolution of consumption patterns during the life cycle is slower for poor households which are thus affected by a degree of inertia in their consumption, making it more difficult for them to move closer to the consumption patterns of more privileged socio-economic classes. The middle class, for its part, is characterized by a strong dynamic of consumption.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".