MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The second demographic transition, new household forms and the urban population of France during the 1990s

2004· article· en· W2065812731 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip E. Ogden, Ray Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Institute of British Geographers · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Aging, and Tourism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusDemographic transitionQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationGeographyTransition (genetics)Demographic economicsHistorical demographyEconomic geographyDemographic analysisWork (physics)DemographySociologyFertilityEconomicsDeveloped country

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

European household structures and their geography have been transformed in recent decades as a response to the interplay of demographic events and changing lifestyles. The formation of new households generally outstrips the rate of population increase, as more numerous and smaller households result from changing patterns of marriage, child‐bearing, divorce and longevity. This paper tests some of the underlying hypotheses of the ‘second demographic transition’ using data from the most recent (1999) French population census. It provides an analysis of changing national household structures over the last quarter of the twentieth century and highlights the importance of smaller households, with particular emphasis on the rise of living alone. Trends identified in earlier work have intensified during the 1990s. In discussing the geography of new household forms, the paper focuses particularly on the evolution of major central cities and argues for more explicit links between their distinctive population and household structures and wider socio‐economic change.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations78
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Institute of British GeographersSame topicMigration, Aging, and Tourism StudiesFrench-language works237,207