MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391746324 · doi:10.4000/brussels.7283

Faire des économies avec la remise en logement ? Une comparaison des coûts avec ceux du sans-chez-soirisme

2024· article· fr· W4391746324 on OpenAlex
Justine Carlier, Magali Verdonck

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrussels Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La mise en place du projet « Housing First » dans plusieurs pays tels que la France et le Canada, a mis en évidence que permettre aux sans-abris d’obtenir un logement afin de les réinsérer dans la société pouvait parfois avoir un coût moindre pour l’État que le coût de les laisser dans la rue. Malgré une volonté politique belge et européenne de prévenir et de mettre fin au sans-abrisme, aucune étude n’a été réalisée sur son coût social en Belgique francophone, ne permettant donc pas d’évaluer les politiques mises en place et les changements éventuellement nécessaires. L’objectif de l’étude synthétisée ici est d’évaluer le coût social du sans-abrisme en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, en tenant compte à la fois des coûts directs, mais aussi des coûts indirects, et de les comparer ensuite aux coûts associé à la sortie du sans-abrisme.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.010
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.243 · 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