MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090740297 · doi:10.7202/706705ar

Une nouvelle mesure pour analyser la pauvreté au Québec : l’indice synthétique de pauvreté-richesse

2005· article· fr· W2090740297 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
François Gardes, Simon Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueService social · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une nouvelle mesure de la pauvreté: l'indice synthétique de pauvreté-richesse (ISPR). Cet indice est multidimensionnel, les trois dimensions retenues étant le revenu, les dépenses totales et la privation des ménages. Cet indice est à la fois absolu et relatif. Le caractère relatif de la pauvreté a été opérationnalisé en fonction de la région, de l'âge et de la scolarité. Les propriétés formelles de cet indice rendent possibles les comparaisons internationales et les analyses temporelles sur l'évolution du phénomène de la pauvreté, sans biais systématique. Le but de cette mesure ne vise pas avant tout un comptage du nombre des pauvres, mais bien l'élaboration d'un instrument d'analyse de la pauvreté. Les données canadiennes analysées proviennent de l'Enquête sur les dépenses des familles de Statistique Canada. La pauvreté reste élevée au Québec, mais l'écart avec l'Ontario s'amenuise fortement, puisque la pauvreté y est presque aussi élevée qu'au Québec. La pauvreté est aussi en progression dans le groupe des ménages les plus jeunes et les moins scolarisés.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueService socialSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207