MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770396463 · doi:10.7202/1041738ar

La participation de personnes vieillissantes dans les comités logement à Montréal : composer avec l’exclusion territoriale1

2017· article· fr· W2770396463 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julien Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueLien social et Politiques · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La possibilité de vieillir sur place, pour une catégorie de personnes d’un certain âge et disposant de faibles revenus, se trouve fragilisée dans certains quartiers centraux montréalais. Les personnes vieillissantes peuvent toutefois s’ajuster aux dynamiques urbaines. Dans le contexte précis de cet article, nous tenterons de déterminer les contours de la participation de personnes vieillissantes au sein de comités logement, en lien avec l’insécurité locative pouvant les affecter. Cet article, basé sur les premiers résultats et analyses d’une recherche en cours, mobilise le contenu de 14 entrevues semi-dirigées (7 réalisées avec des intervenantes et 7 avec des personnes vieillissantes participant aux activités des comités), de même que sur plusieurs mois d’observation participante. L’exclusion territoriale, ou l’épée de Damoclès qui plane sur les personnes vieillissantes résidant de longue date dans leur logement est mise à distance par la participation dans les comités logement, en fournissant aux individus du support juridique, social et symbolique. Les politiques publiques de vieillissement sur place devraient davantage prendre en compte la situation des personnes vieillissantes au sein du parc locatif privé.

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)0.004
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLien social et PolitiquesSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207