MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206588658 · doi:10.7202/1083633ar

Choix de l’échelle géographique et de la dimension temps : quel impact sur la forme de la structure hiérarchique ? Une investigation de la loi de Zipf sur le cas de la République du Bénin

2021· article· fr· W4206588658 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hortensia Vicentia Acacha, Jean Dubé

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Regional Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional Economics and Spatial Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article propose d’explorer l’impact du choix de l’échelle spatiale ainsi que de la période temporelle sur l’ampleur du coefficient de hiérarchisation issue de la relation rang-taille (ou loi de Zipf). Pour l’exercice, les données des recensements de la population du Bénin sont utilisées afin de définir trois unités géographiques distinctes pour trois années différentes : 1992, 2002 et 2012. Sans permettre une généralisation, les résultats montrent que la structure hiérarchique mesurée par la relation rang-taille est cohérente avec les attentes théoriques lorsque les unités géographiques prennent appui sur une réalité économique (bassins d’emplois), alors que les définitions issues des limites administratives, reflétant des choix politiques, proposent une structure hiérarchique qui n’est pas forcément cohérente avec la loi de Zipf. Le choix de l’année de référence n’influence que marginalement les relations obtenues. Ces résultats suggèrent ainsi que l’application de la loi rang-taille s’applique surtout, du moins pour le Bénin, sur une ségrégation géographique économique plutôt qu’administrative.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Regional ScienceSame topicRegional Economics and Spatial AnalysisFrench-language works237,207