MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089005233 · doi:10.3917/reru.073.0453

Disparités locales du revenu d'emploi au sein du champ métropolitain de Québec Le rôle des navettes vers les pôles d'emploi (1980- 2000)

2007· article· fr· W2089005233 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rémy Barbonne, Paul Villeneuve, Marius Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’Économie Régionale & Urbaine · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

S’inscrivant dans la perspective de mieux documenter la problématique des disparités territoriales de revenu à fine échelle spatiale, lesquelles seraient plus prononcées qu’à large échelle, cet article propose une analyse multivariée de l’évolution entre 1980 et 2000. L’étude porte sur les déterminants spatiaux et structurels des disparités du revenu moyen d’emploi entre petites localités situées dans l’aire d’influence (champ métropolitain) d’une petite région métropolitaine canadienne, la RMR de Québec. Globalement, les résultats confirment l’importance des navettes vers les pôles d’emploi métropolitains et non-métropolitains mais également l’influence très forte de certaines variables structurelles comme le niveau de scolarisation de la population. Finalement, l’article souligne l’influence grandissante des pôles non-métropolitains (y compris les plus petits d’entre eux) ainsi que de la distance par rapport aux principaux axes de communication dans l’évolution des disparités locales de revenu à l’échelle du champ métropolitain de Québec.

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)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’Économie Régionale & UrbaineSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207