Vivre en famille ou en pension : stratégies résidentielles et réseaux d’accueil1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nombreux sont les moralistes du tournant duxxesiècle qui critiquent la présence de pensionnaires payant pour être logés et nourris au sein des ménages privés. Ce serait le signe de la désagrégation des réseaux familiaux d’entraide. Cet article compare les caractéristiques des pensionnaires à celles des personnes apparentées qui se joignent aux ménages de la ville de Québec au moment des recensements canadiens de 1891 et 1901. La comparaison cherche à mettre de l’avant les réseaux de solidarité ayant pu se déployer par le partage de la résidence. Elle a aussi pour objectif de vérifier le supposé délaissement de l’hébergement des parents au profit des pensionnaires. Cette démarche permet de revoir quelques problèmes posés par l’utilisation des recensements pour capter ces populations flottantes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".