MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Points de vue sur la jeunesse – Volume 1

2014· book-chapter· fr· W4300899350 on OpenAlexaff
Tomi Kiilakoski, Anu Gretschel

Bibliographic record

VenuePoints de vue sur la jeunesse · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPhilosophy, Sociology, Political Theory
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selon cet article, les jeunes s’impliquent davantage dans le débat sociétal lorsque les structures formelles de participation ne sont pas suffisamment développées. L’article analyse l’étendue de la culture démocratique en passant en revue les différentes théories de la démocratie. La démocratie représentative, et sa conception idéale des citoyens qui élisent des délégations, contraste avec les idéaux de démocratie directe, participative, délibérative et de contre-démocratie, et, respectivement, avec les idéaux de prise de décision et de participation directes, de débats et de surveillance démocratiques. Ces perspectives théoriques sont associées aux résultats d’études empiriques sur les jeunes qui montrent que les responsables disposent de plus en plus de méthodes pour mener des politiques utilisées quotidiennement par les jeunes. A titre d’exemple pratique, l’article analyse trois cas d’étude et de promotion de la participation des jeunes. L’auteur soutient que la question d’une jeunesse désintéressée et passive peut être mal comprise, car la nature de la démocratie à laquelle les jeunes sont censés, de plus, participer n’est pas fondée sur une compréhension suffisamment large de la démocratie.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
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
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoints de vue sur la jeunesseSame topicPhilosophy, Sociology, Political TheoryFrench-language works237,207