MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2079713196 · doi:10.3917/riges.324.0060

Notre avenir en 4 D : la démographie

2007· article· fr· W2079713196 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Martin I. Boyer

Bibliographic record

VenueGestion · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Tout comme la démographie, discipline qui oscille entre les sciences humaines et les sciences sociales, la gestion est assise sur plus d’un pilier universitaire, soit ceux des sciences comptables et des sciences sociales. Plusieurs chercheurs se sont penchés sur les multiples facettes de la démographie occidentale de l’après-guerre. La démographie canadienne n’est pas en reste puisque le Canada représente une observation particulière en Occident avec des politiques d’immigration originales, un multiculturalisme avoué et un solide filet social. Au-delà des mesures et des calculs de population et des considérations purement ethnocentriques, pourquoi la Chambre de commerce du Montréal métropolitain, qui fut la marraine de la création de HEC Montréal, devrait se préoccuper de la composition de la population québécoise? Bien que plusieurs économistes, sociologues et démographes jugent comme une catastrophe imminente les mouvements de populations que le Québec subira vraisemblablement au cours des prochaines décennies, les solutions mises en avant nécessitent un investissement immédiat de ressources dont la provenance est encore inconnue, et ce, sans savoir si elles toucheront la cible. Et pour ajouter l’insulte à l’injure, si ces politiques manquent leur cible, nous accablerons plus encore les générations futures.

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)0.003
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGestion→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→