MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572095550 · doi:10.7202/1039503ar

L’adoption coutumière chez les Inuit du Nunavik : ses spécificités et conséquences sur le développement de l’enfant

2016· article· fr· W2572095550 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Béatrice Decaluwe, Marie-Andrée Poirier, Gina Muckle

Bibliographic record

VenueEnfances Familles Générations · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesEthnologyArtSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diverses pratiques d’échange ou de transfert d’enfants existent au sein de différents groupes indigènes ou autochtones. Notamment chez les Inuit du Nunavik, un tiers des enfants sont adoptés selon la coutume (Rochett e et al ., 2007). Basée sur le don d’un enfant à un autre membre de la communauté, cette pratique d’adoption informelle découle de la façon dont les Inuit conçoivent la famille et définissent la notion de filiation. Cet article vise à faire un portrait de l’adoption coutumière chez les Inuit. La première partie énonce les éléments culturels qui influencent la façon dont s’articule cette pratique et les principales caractéristiques (motif menant à l’adoption, préservation du lien de filiation, consentement, etc.) qui la distinguent des autres formes d’adoption (adoption simple, plénière, ouverte) existantes en Occident. La deuxième partie s’intéresse à l’environnement familial et au développement des enfants adoptés en le comparant à celui des enfants non adoptés.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnfances Familles GénérationsSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207