MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094498218 · doi:10.7202/1018230ar

Les personnes âgées itinérantes — invisibles et exclues. Une analyse de trois stratégies pour contrer l’itinérance

2013· article· fr· W2094498218 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université du Québec à MontréalMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux Cavendish
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En se basant sur le concept d’exclusion sociale, cet article soutient que le paradigme de l’État d’investissement social de même que l’accent mis par les politiques sur le vieillissement actif contribuent à l’exclusion des personnes âgées itinérantes (PAI) tant dans les politiques, les pratiques que la recherche. S’appuyant sur trois politiques et plans d’action sur l’itinérance émanant des gouvernements fédéral (canadien), provincial (québécois) et municipal (la Ville de Montréal), cet article montre comment l’exclusion des PAI se manifeste dans ces stratégies. Enfin, cet article démontre le besoin de reconnaître les multiples exclusions des PAI et conclut sur un appel à différents acteurs afin qu’ils adoptent une posture critique face aux discours et aux modèles normatifs qui concourent à l’exclusion de cette population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.312 · 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