MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804370403 · doi:10.7202/1045200ar

Les aspirations des familles québécoises, 1959-2013

2018· article· fr· W2804370403 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Simon Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers des dix · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les aspirations des familles caractérisent ce qui est jugé désirable pour le bien-être de leurs membres une fois satisfaits les besoins de base. Les biens et services désirés doivent être perçus comme étant accessibles. L’examen des données de trois enquêtes comparables menées au Québec en 1959, 1977 et 2013 permet la comparaison dans le temps des aspirations des familles. La hausse des revenus familiaux durant les Trente glorieuses et le desserrement considérable des contraintes sociales et économiques dans les années 1960 et 1970 avec l’avènement de l’État providence ont rendu possible l’extension notable des aspirations. Les choses ont changé par la suite dans les années 1980 et l’inquiétude a gagné bon nombre de familles, principalement de classes moyennes. La part des familles et des ménages, notamment ceux formés de personnes vivant seules, incapables de satisfaire leurs besoins de base et incapables d’entrer dans l’univers des aspirations, a augmenté. Cela s’explique par des causes exogènes (pressions à la baisse sur les revenus, hausse des inégalités notamment) mais aussi par des causes endogènes en lien avec les modes de vie (hausse de la vie en solitaire, divorce, etc.). Le sentiment d’exclusion risque de s’accentuer dans notre société dans les années à venir.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.020
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers des dixSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207