Bien-être et consommation chez les Esquimaux du Nouveau-Québec : un problème communautaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le ministère des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien et le ministère des Affaires sociales du Québec ont convenu d'une période d'essai pour l'implantation de l'aide sociale, par le Québec, chez les Amérindiens du Nouveau-Québec. Doit-il y avoir des ajustements de la loi d'aide sociale québécoise (loi 26) au milieu nordique ? Si oui, lesquels, et dans quelle direction peuvent-ils être accomplis ? Au delà de la simple description des modèles de consommation esquimaux qui correspondent de moins en moins aux modèles traditionnels, l'article vise à faire reconnaître explicitement la dichotomie besoins/aspirations, importante dans les rapports sociaux, mais souvent oubliée des législateurs et des agents du bien-être. Des propositions sont faites qui vont à rencontre de l'esprit individuel de la loi. Le bien-être ne peut pas être, toujours et partout, vu en termes personnels ; il doit l'être aussi dans une perspective collective et devenir un instrument de la communauté.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".