MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111729921 · doi:10.7202/039319ar

Vieilliront-ils un jour ? Les baby-boomers aidants face à leur vieillissement

2010· article· fr· W2111729921 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Laure Blein, Jean‐Pierre Lavoie, Nancy Guberman, Ignace Olazabal

Bibliographic record

VenueLien social et Politiques · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtBaby boomPolitical scienceSociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, un nombre grandissant de personnes aidantes sont issues du baby-boom. Au cours d’entrevues portant sur leur expérience d’aidant, nous les avons questionnées sur leur perception de la vieillesse et du vieillissement, afin de faire ressortir plus spécifiquement leur discours au sujet de leur propre vieillissement, les façons dont elles s’y préparent et les exigences énoncées envers les services de santé et, plus particulièrement, les services publics, pour les accompagner dans un vieillissement qu’elles souhaitent radicalement différent de celui de leurs parents.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.385 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLien social et PolitiquesSame topicGlobal Health Care IssuesFrench-language works237,207