MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126426983 · doi:10.7202/1025493ar

Les origines régionales ancestrales au Québec

2014· article· fr· W2126426983 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc Adélard Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers québécois de démographie · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude présente une mesure de l’enracinement territorial et de la diversité des origines régionales ancestrales dans la population du Québec. Les données proviennent d’un ensemble de 5 100 généalogies ascendantes, soit 300 généalogies pour chacune des 17 régions de la province. Ces généalogies ont été construites à l’aide des données du fichier BALSAC, qui contient des informations sur la population québécoise remontant au début du 17esiècle. L’observation des lieux de mariage des ancêtres a permis d’établir une mesure de l’ancienneté régionale des individus, qui s’exprime en nombre de générations. La part occupée par chaque région dans l’ensemble des lieux de mariages des ancêtres a fourni une mesure de la diversité des origines ancestrales individuelles. Les résultats ont montré une variabilité importante dans les profondeurs et les origines régionales ancestrales. Les profondeurs moyennes varient de moins d’une génération à plus de cinq générations d’ancêtres mariés dans la même région. Les contributions régionales ont fait ressortir l’importance de la proximité géographique, mais aussi celle de l’ancienneté des zones de peuplement. Ces résultats tracent un portrait de la migration interrégionale intergénérationnelle résultante au Québec depuis le 17esiècle.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.290 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers québécois de démographieSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207