MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

TRAJECTOIRES D’INSERTION PROFESSIONNELLE DES JEUNES AU BÉNIN : FORMES D’ENTRÉE SUR LE MARCHÉ DU TRAVAIL, DURÉE DE TRANSITION ET INSTABILITÉ EN EMPLOI

2021· article· fr· W4383996882 on OpenAlexaff
Judicaël Alladatin, Lucien Médard DAHOUE, Mahutin Anselme HOUESSIGBEDE, Mankponsè Augustin Gnanguènon

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir d’une analyse de données rétrospectives retraçant le parcours professionnel de jeunes de 18-29 ans, cet article propose une réflexion les trajectoires professionnelles des jeunes au Bénin en s’intéressant spécifiquement aux formes d’entrée sur le marché du travail, aux durées de transition et à l’instabilité en emploi. Nous faisons recours à des méthodes d’analyses statistiques spécifiques complémentaires, aussi bien descriptives qu’explicatives et qui facilitent l’étude des parcours de vie. A travers donc un modèle de régression en temps discret, le modèle Cox, nous proposons une meilleure perspective d’analyse des trajectoires d’insertion des jeunes au Bénin. Les données utilisées proviennent de l’Enquête sur la Transition de l’École à la Vie Active (ETVA) réalisée au Bénin en 2012 par l’Institut National de la Statistique et de l’Analyse Économique (INSAE). L’analyse des différentes formes, des effectifs et des durées de transitions suggère une stabilité compromise chez les jeunes de 18-29 ans au Bénin. Le modèle met en évidence les facteurs explicatifs qui découlent aussi bien de causes internes que externes.

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)0.010
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicSocial Sciences and Governance→French-language works237,207→