Le profil des bénévoles en loisir de 2001 et 2012 : changements ou similitudes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 10 ans, le profil des benevoles en loisir au Quebec a-t-il change ? Pour repondre a cette question, le Laboratoire en loisir et vie communautaire vient de proceder a une seconde enquete aupres des benevoles en loisir. Le present bulletin expose quelques donnees comparatives des etudes « Le benevolat en loisir » de 2001 et « Le benevolat en loisir, 10 ans apres » de 2012. Il fait etat des premiers resultats de l’enquete de 2012. Les lecteurs constateront que ce n’est pas tant les changements du profil des benevoles en loisir qui attirent l’attention mais plutot les similitudes. Les caracteristiques marquantes en 2001 le sont encore plus en 2012. A noter que ce bulletin prepare la sortie d’un autre bulletin qui sera diffuse au printemps 2013. A cette occasion, les principaux resultats de l’etude « Le benevolat en loisir, 10 ans apres » seront devoiles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".