MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232291025 · doi:10.3138/cpp.37.suppl.s33

La participation sociale des Canadiens : une analyse selon l'approche des parcours de vie

2011· article· en· W4232291025 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stéphanie Gaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologySocial engagementCivic engagementPolitical sciencePublic relationsSocial sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The level of participation of Canadians in civic and public life fell significantly between 1992 and 2005. A better understanding of this change in the life courses of Canadians could allow the development of policies that encourage the engagement of individuals within their communities. Until now, the development of such policies, and the longitudinal analyses done in Canada, have seldom incorporated the collective dimension of communities. In this article, we propose an indicator that makes it possible to include the interaction between individuals and their communities while maintaining an analysis centred on the individual and his or her life course. We propose to use the concept of social participation of an individual, defined as the gift of time to another individual or an organization, to capture formal (volunteering) and informal (mutual aid) contributions to the community. Data from the General Social Survey (GSS) on Time Use for the years 1992, 1998, and 2005 are used to understand changes in the practices of social participation in the lives of Canadians.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207