MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094348390 · doi:10.7202/305602ar

Le sous-financement gouvernemental et son impact sur le développement des asiles francophones au Québec (1845-1918)

2008· article· fr· W2094348390 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s'intéresse à l'impact du sous-financement gouvernemental sur le développement des établissements asilaires au Québec entre 1845 et 1918. Dès le départ, la préférence accordée par les hommes politiques au système d'affermage, lequel permet au gouvernement de maintenir ses dépenses à un très bas niveau, exerce des effets délétères sur la qualité des soins et le développement de la psychiatrie. Déjà l'un des plus bas en Amérique du Nord, le financement des asiles québécois chute dramatiquement après 1871, au fur et à mesure que la population des aliénés internés augmente et que les besoins deviennent plus criants. La loi de 1885 et l'enquête de 1887 sur les asiles ébranlent pourtant le système d'affermage et ouvrent la porte à une lente modernisation des institutions asilaires. La période de 1890 à 1918 s'avère en effet une période de transition entre l'asile-prison et l'asile-hôpital; si les problèmes financiers et, conséquemment, les problèmes d'aménagement de l'espace asilaire restent aigus, l'amélioration de la progression des soins annonce les gains ultérieurs de la psychiatrie.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicMigration, Identity, and HealthFrench-language works237,207