MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2711479356 · doi:10.7202/1033915ar

Culture et structuration des opinions politiques des travailleurs du papier

2015· article· fr· W2711479356 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dan Glenday, Johanne Archambault

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude porte sur deux usines de pâtes et papiers situées, l’une en Ontario, l’autre au Québec, dans des villes de taille et de composition sociale comparables. L’usine ontarienne a été entièrement modernisée au début de la décennie. L’examen du processus de production et des tâches accomplies par les ouvriers des deux usines montre que les nouvelles technologies ont révolutionné le travail des ouvriers de la production ontariens, dont les fonctions diffèrent désormais de celles de leurs camarades du Québec; cependant, le travail des ouvriers affectés aux machines demeure le même dans les deux usines. L’auteur s’intéresse aux effets des changements technologiques sur la culture politique; il visait aussi à éclairer les similitudes et les différences d’opinions politiques entre Canadiens anglais et Québécois. Son enquête montre que la « classe sociale » ne peut à elle seule rendre compte des différences d’opinion entre les ouvriers enquêtés sur neuf sujets politiques importants.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.349

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207