MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2701681827 · doi:10.7202/1039932ar

Regards croisés sur une mobilisation éclair : l'à-propos de la médiatisation et du vieillissement

2017· article· fr· W2701681827 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Line Grenier, Kim Sawchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente une réflexion critique sur la médiatisation, son opportunité et sa pertinence aujourd’hui dans des sociétés contemporaines qui, à l’instar du Québec, se trouvent marquées non seulement par les avancées du numérique mais aussi par un vieillissement sans précédent de leur population. Il porte aussi sur le vieillissement : tant ses configurations hétérogènes dans un monde où l’espérance de vie en hausse contribue à accroitre le nombre et la présence des sujets vieillissants, que sa relative invisibilité en communication et dans les études médiatiques encore résolument tournées vers la jeunesse et les jeunes comme leur sujet de prédilection. Nous proposons de porter un tel regard croisé inspiré d’une mobilisation éclair ayant fait l’objet d’une recherche-action. Notre réflexion à propos de cette mobilisation éclair vise à en comprendre la pertinence et l’opportunité au moment où elle a eu lieu, de même qu’à saisir les enjeux historiques plus larges qui l’animent et dont elle participe. Elle en questionnel’à-propos, approximativement ce qu’en anglais on qualifie detimeliness.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.037
Scholarly communication0.0150.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designQualitative
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 venueRecherches sociographiquesSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207