MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2765818876 · doi:10.71781/21320

L'entrée sur le marché du travail des jeunes adultes : enquête longitudinale auprès de diplômés de second cycle à Montréal

2017· dissertation· fr· W2765818876 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alizé Houdelinckx

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2017
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir d’une enquête longitudinale menée auprès de dix diplômés de maîtrise à Montréal, cette recherche propose un approfondissement des temps courts du processus d’entrée sur le marché du travail, en révélant les tensions subjectives entre un épanouissement au travail par l’apprentissage et la construction de l’indépendance par l’emploi. Menée mensuellement de mai à décembre 2016, cette enquête fait ressortir quatre phases successives du processus d’entrée sur le marché du travail des jeunes adultes diplômés : la phase de la projection professionnelle (par la formulation d’un projet professionnel), la phase de l’attente (marquée par un ajustement à de nouveaux rythmes et par le développement de l’apprentissage autonome), la phase de la confrontation au réel (par la réalisation ou non des projets professionnels) et la phase du choix professionnel (caractérisée par des modèles effectifs d’entrée sur le marché du travail et de représentation de la jeunesse et de l’âge adulte). L’analyse de ces phases éclaire les rapports contemporains au travail et à l’emploi des jeunes adultes et les composantes symboliques qui en découlent, en lien avec l’entre-deux âges que constitue le devenir adulte.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→