MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W331369963 · doi:10.3917/inso.137.0036

Du bon usage des échelles d'équivalence

2007· article· fr· W331369963 on OpenAlexaff
Jérôme Accardo

Bibliographic record

VenueInformations sociales · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Mesurer les économies d’échelle que les ménages réalisent à l’occasion de leur consommation de biens et de services soulève de sérieuses difficultés, aussi bien théoriques que pratiques. Les comparaisons des niveaux de vie entre ménages de taille différentes en sont fragilisées. Les analyses de la distribution des revenus reposent ainsi sur des échelles d’équivalence assez largement conventionnelles. Cependant, moyennant quelques précautions, l’incidence sur les diagnostics en matière d’inégalités ou de pauvreté reste relativement limitée.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.003

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.264 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformations socialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207