MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2124047964 · doi:10.7202/008516ar

Inégalités socioéconomiques et bien-être psychologique : une analyse secondaire de l’Enquête sociale et de santé de 1998

2004· article· fr· W2124047964 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sylvia Kairouz, Andrée Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologie et sociétés · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les enquêtes institutionelles constituent une source de données riche et rigoureuse. Tirant parti du plan échantillonnal complexe par ménages de l’Enquête sociale et de santé de Santé Québec (1998), cette étude vise à établir la contribution de la famille au bien-être psychologique des chefs de famille avec enfants mineurs et de leurs conjoint(e)s et à examiner les inégalités socioéconomiques en ce qui concerne la santé mentale. L’étude adopte une approche multiniveaux pour examiner la contribution des inégalités socioéconomiques à la détresse psychologique des familles et des individus. L’échantillon est composé de6 661adultes, chefs de ménages et leurs conjoint(e)s, vivant à l’intérieur de3 891familles ayant des enfants mineurs. Les analyses multiniveaux révèlent que42 % de la variabilité dans la détresse psychologique se retrouve entre les unités familiales et que contrairement au revenu objectif des familles, la perception subjective de sa situation financière prédit modestement mais significativement la détresse psychologique.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.854
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.339 · 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

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociologie et sociétés→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→