MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123892145 · doi:10.7202/014783ar

Le sentiment d’insécurité dans les lieux publics urbains et l’évaluation personnelle du risque chez des travailleuses de la santé

2007· article· fr· W2123892145 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Paquin

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCrime Patterns and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceValuation (finance)PhilosophyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le sentiment d’insécurité en milieu urbain est une crainte multiforme basée sur la criminalité, les incivilités et les actes d’intimidation et de violence dans les espaces publics. Le sentiment d’insécurité dans un lieu public est déterminé par une évaluation personnelle du risque. Ce processus d’évaluation permet aux personnes, à la suite d’un indice d’alerte, d’analyser l’environnement global d’un espace public urbain. Cette évaluation personnelle du risque s’effectue grâce à un patron d’organisation de l’information sur l’environnement externe composé de trois pôles : les générateurs microsociaux de l’insécurité, la disponibilité de l’aide et la présence de témoins ; les caractéristiques du milieu bâti ; auxquelles s’ajoutent les variables personnelles de même que le contexte macrosociologique. L’évaluation personnelle du risque permet de reconnaître les facteurs de risque, mais aussi les facteurs de protection dans l’environnement physique et social, comme l’aide disponible, et de les mobiliser pour rétablir la sécurité.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicCrime Patterns and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207