MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112706026

Vieillissement et aménagement : Perspectives plurielles

2018· book· fr· W3112706026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sébastien Lord, Denise Piché

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l'Université de Montréal PUM eBooks · 2018
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Axe sur les enjeux sociaux, economiques et politiques de notre temps, cet ouvrage est une reflexion sans complaisance sur le vieillissement. Il met en lumiere les savoirs actuels sur les habitats et leur amenagement au regard de la demande implicite de la societe qui vise a ce que les gens vieillissent chez eux, dans leur communaute. Ou en est la recherche a ce sujet au Quebec et dans les collectivites francophones ? Quelles sont les politiques publiques et les pratiques d’amenagement dans ce contexte ? Comment adapter et creer des milieux de vie sains, surs et accueil­lants pour tous les âges dans les regions et les villes d’aujourd’hui et de demain ? Les auteurs, des chercheurs et des professionnels issus de plusieurs disciplines, analysent cette question dans un contexte nouveau ou le vieillissement demographique a d’abord capte l’attention des domaines de la sante, de l’economie du travail et de la fiscalite. Trois thematiques structurent l’ouvrage : les facons de penser le vieillissement et d’anticiper son impact, l’evaluation des espaces publics et de la mobilite et les transformations a imaginer pour les milieux bâtis. L’originalite de ce livre tient ainsi a la juxtaposition de problemes et d’approches envisages dans une perspective interdisciplinaire.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0090.026
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l'Université de Montréal PUM eBooksSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207