MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606735964 · doi:10.7202/1038749ar

Stratification et classes sociales à Montréal, 1991-2011

2017· article· fr· W2606735964 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Simon Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers des dix · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La structure sociale de la ville de Montréal est typique de la modernité avancée. Nous analysons la mutation macrosociale qui l’a complètement transformée, d’abord visible dans la croissance des effectifs aux échelons élevés de la hiérarchie sociale devenus plus diversifiés. La taille de la classe ouvrière a rétrécit et de nouvelles classes ont augmenté leurs effectifs, notamment chez les techniciens et les professionnels. Les femmes en emploi sont aussi nombreuses que les hommes et elles ne sont plus concentrées dans des secteurs féminisés. Elles ont accentué leur présence dans tous les échelons, sauf chez les cadres supérieurs où elles sont encore sous représentées. Les clivages linguistiques (anglais-français) qui ont caractérisé la stratification sociale montréalaise par le passé sont disparus, mais la ville en conserve quelques traces puisque les anglophones sont encore davantage surreprésentés au sein des cadres supérieurs. Ces clivages anciens ont cédé la place à une nouvelle forme de différenciation sociale selon l’origine ethnique. Nous montrons enfin que la stratification sociale de la ville de Québec s’est beaucoup rapprochée de celle de Montréal, les deux grandes villes se distinguant du reste de la société québécoise.

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)0.002
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers des dixSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207