Vingt années de sciences sociales du vieillissement au Canada: un essai d'interprétation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is an essay, based on the attempted assessment ofresearch in the social sciences on aging in Canada and in Quebec during the last 20 years. It endeavours o t understand this area as based on institutional factors, including linguistic, cultural and political divisions between English Canada and Quebec, and the role of some major forces. Canadian research on aging is profoundly based on a social democratic vision of the role of the State that establishes the basic concept of citizenship, rights, liberties, justice and equality. It consequently contributes to maintaining the protective, redistributive, regulatory andcorrection ofinequalities that the State carries out through its social and fiscal policies. In the space of 20 years, the social sciences of aging in Canada have gone from a representation of aging characterized by decline, unavoidable physical and often psychic deterioration of capacities, impoverishment, and exclusion to a much more qualified vision of aging distinguished by the search for autonomy, adaptation, and growth in which seniors do not succumb passively to their condition but rather become responsible for their own development. At the same time, researchers, as well as experts and decision makers in the area ofaging, have turned progressively from an analysis of aging centred on social problems and the programs aimed to meet these problems, which encouraged the development of the state as provider, to an analysis of the forces and resources which seniors have or could obtain to rekindle family or community solidarities with the goal of maximum promotion of the autonomy of older persons.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".