MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2265651491 · doi:10.3917/popsoc.472.0001

Le nombre et la part des immigrés dans la population : comparaisons internationales

2010· article· fr· W2265651491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation & Sociétés · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les États-Unis sont le pays du monde ayant sur son sol le plus grand nombre d’immigrés (personnes nées à l’étranger) : 43 millions. C’est six fois plus que l’Arabie saoudite (7,3 millions) ou le Canada (7,2). Mais proportionnellement à leur taille, ces deux derniers pays ont deux fois plus d’immigrés : 28 % et 21 %, contre 13 % aux États-Unis. Les pays de petite taille accueillent proportionnellement le plus d’immigrés. La Suisse, avec 23 % d’immigrés, se situe devant les États-Unis, et le Luxembourg a une proportion encore plus élevée (35 %). Dans les vieux pays d’immigration comme les États-Unis ou la France, la population immigrée s’est constituée progressivement. Le flux d’entrée, même modeste à certaines périodes, comme en France aujourd’hui, s’est maintenu de façon presque ininterrompue sur plus d’un siècle. Dans les pays d’immigration récente comme l’Espagne, la population immigrée s’est en revanche constituée très récemment avec des flux massifs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.303 · 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