MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090913478 · doi:10.7202/706558ar

Le phénomène de l’hébergement privé pour personnes âgées : peut-on éviter ou devrait-on l’aménager?

2005· article· fr· W2090913478 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Lorraine Brissette

Bibliographic record

VenueService social · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article aborde la problématique du développement anarchique et accéléré des ressources d'hébergement pour personnes âgées au cours des dix dernières années. Il décrit tout d'abord les caractéristiques de ces ressources pour ensuite analyser les causes de leur développement du point de vue des usagers et des intervenants. Il démontre la conjugaison quasi historique de deux facteurs principaux, soit l'augmentation démographique du poid des personnes du troisième mais surtout du quatrième âge et les changements dans la structure des revenus au Québec. Le déplacement progressif de la richesse vers les couches plus âgées de la population va entraîner un clivage dans cette population, clivage qui affectera le développement des ressources. L'article conclut sur le fait que la croissance du secteur privé dans le contexte social et économique actuel est inévitable, mais qu'elle soulève de nombreuses questions, dont celle de la responsabilité de l'État à l'égard du contrôle de la qualité des services qui sont donnés dans ce secteur.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueService social→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→