MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049987759 · doi:10.7202/009633ar

Le bien-être des enfants du Québec : une responsabilité collective1

2004· article· fr· W2049987759 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ruth Rose, Lorraine Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsFédération des Maisons D'Hébergement pour FemmesUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’une des revendications portées par la section québécoise de la Marche mondiale des femmes en l’an 2000 était la restauration d’une allocation universelle pour enfants au Québec, tout en assurant un montant suffisant pour couvrir l’ensemble des besoins essentiels des enfants appartenant aux familles les plus pauvres. Ce texte décrit d’abord une série de réformes qui ont eu lieu au cours des années 1990, réformes qui ont eu pour effet de réduire le soutien monétaire de l’ensemble des familles québécoises. De plus, à cause des coupures répétées au programme d’aide sociale et aux autres mesures destinées aux démunis, ce sont les familles les plus pauvres qui ont subi les diminutions les plus importantes, alors que les nantis ont bénéficié de réductions d’impôts. Ce texte formule ensuite une proposition visant à concrétiser la revendication du mouvement des femmes dans une perspective de réduire les inégalités de revenu et de rétablir, du moins partiellement, le niveau de vie dont bénéficiaient les familles à revenu faible et moyen en 1994.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207