MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046736307 · doi:10.1214/07-sts241

A.-M. Guerry’s Moral Statistics of France: Challenges for Multivariable Spatial Analysis

2007· article· en· W2046736307 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Multivariate statisticsThematic mapMultivariate analysisSpatial analysisLiteracyFoundation (evidence)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

André-Michel Guerry’s (1833) Essai sur la Statistique Morale de la France was one of the foundation studies of modern social science. Guerry assembled data on crimes, suicides, literacy and other “moral statistics,” and used tables and maps to analyze a variety of social issues in perhaps the first comprehensive study relating such variables. Indeed, the Essai may be considered the book that launched modern empirical social science, for the questions raised and the methods Guerry developed to try to answer them. Guerry’s data consist of a large number of variables recorded for each of the départments of France in the 1820–1830s and therefore involve both multivariate and geographical aspects. In addition to historical interest, these data provide the opportunity to ask how modern methods of statistics, graphics, thematic cartography and geovisualization can shed further light on the questions he raised. We present a variety of methods attempting to address Guerry’s challenge for multivariate spatial statistics.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.164
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.164
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations75
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical ScienceSame topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207