MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999976047 · doi:10.1522/revueot.v28n2.1047

Géographie de la nouvelle économie montréalaise en 2016, 29 selon les variables du genre et de l’appartenance ethnolinguistique

2019· article· fr· W2999976047 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sylvie Paré, Kelogue Thérasmé

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Organisations & territoires · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis la fin des années 1980, environ 90 % des PME du Québec oeuvrant dans les secteursd’activité traditionnels ont introduit de nouvelles technologies dans la gestion de leurs opérations et dans leursmodes de production. Une mutation s’est amorcée vers une économie du savoir dans la région métropolitainede recensement (RMR) de Montréal ainsi que dans l’ensemble du Québec. Le présent article s’intéresse à cestransformations tant organisationnelles que territoriales en tenant compte des variables du genre et de l’appartenance ethnolinguistique. C’est à partir de la Base de données commerciale des Répertoires Scott’s de 2016 que nous examinons les changements survenus chez les propriétaires et gestionnaires d’entreprises depuis une dizaine d’années dans la RMR de Montréal. Les données montrent que, près de 10 plus tard, les différences persistent entre hommes et femmes en entrepreneuriat, soit la stagnation de la place des femmes entrepreneures dans la nouvelle économie. Les données montrent aussi que l’économie montréalaise est axée de plus en plus vers la nouvelle économie dans les divers groupes ethnolinguistiques.

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)0.002
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue Organisations & territoiresSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207