MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894863760 · doi:10.7202/1051406ar

Participation citoyenne et recherches participatives dans le champ des inégalités sociales

2018· article· fr· W2894863760 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Baptiste Godrie, Guillaume Ouellet, Robert Bastien, Sylvia Bissonnette, Jean Gagné, Luc Gaudet, Audrey Gonin, Isabelle Laurin, Chrisopher McAll, Geneviève McClure, François Régimbal, Jean-François René, Mireille Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsCégep du Vieux MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité TÉLUQMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article analyse les effets de processus de participation citoyenne sur les inégalités sociales à partir de projets de recherche réalisés par les auteurs de l’article, membres d’une équipe multidisciplinaire composée de chercheurs et de partenaires issus de la communauté. La participation citoyenne peut avoir pour effet de lutter contre les inégalités sociales, en particulier d’accès à la parole des groupes les plus exclus, et de conduire les différents participants à se défaire d’un regard préétabli vis-à-vis des populations en situation de pauvreté. L’analyse met également l’accent sur les rapports de pouvoir au coeur des processus participatifs de recherche.

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)0.116
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.177
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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1160.177
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0120.017
Scholarly communication0.0200.010
Open science0.0030.021
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.319
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.126 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207