MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759324298 · doi:10.1111/ilrf.12057

Les services à la personne, toujours dévalorisés? Analyse et classification dans une optique comparative

2017· article· fr· W2759324298 on OpenAlexaffabout
Naomi Lightman

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue internationale du Travail · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policy and Reform Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé L'auteure compare la rémunération des travailleurs des services à la personne selon le prestige de la profession exercée dans différents pays (Canada, États‐Unis, Japon, République de Corée et Taïwan (Chine)), en s'appuyant sur des microdonnées de la Luxembourg Income Study. Elle classe ces professions selon leur degré de «fermeture sociale» et analyse la pénalité ou la prime salariale qui leur est associée dans chaque pays. Elle mesure aussi empiriquement les similarités et différences entre les États‐providence «libéraux» et ceux qui sont plutôt «développeurs productivistes», ainsi qu'au sein de ces régimes, confirmant la nette convergence internationale des services à la personne sous l'effet de la mondialisation.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue internationale du TravailSame topicSocial Policy and Reform StudiesFrench-language works237,207