MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118366398 · doi:10.7202/018593ar

L’évolution de la relation entre le travail rémunéré et la fécondité chez les Canadiennes nées entre 1926 et 1961

2008· article· fr· W2118366398 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Benoı̂t Laplante

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur étudie l’évolution de la relation empirique entre le travail rémunéré et la fécondité chez les Canadiennes nées entre 1926 et 1961 et observées entre 15 et 40 ans à partir de l’histoire des naissances et de la trajectoire d’emploi des femmes interrogées dans le cadre de l’Enquête rétrospective sur la famillede 2001. L’analyse est menée en estimant l’effet de la position dans l’espace d’états multidimensionnel qui combine les positions dans les espaces d’états de l’emploi, des études, de la vie en union et du rang des naissances sur le risque de la naissance suivante. Les résultats montrent qu’au fil des générations, la relation entre le travail rémunéré et la fécondité s’est modifiée : dans les générations les plus récentes, la première naissance survient principalement au cours d’interruptions de la vie de travail. Par ailleurs, le risque de la quatrième naissance et des naissances de rang supérieur décroît tout au long de la période, peu importe la position dans l’espace d’états du travail, ce qui rend difficile de soutenir que le travail rémunéré des femmes explique la baisse de leur fécondité.

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)0.008
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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207