Bibliographic record
Abstract
Connaissance de soi et réussite du coupleRichard Hould La connaissance de soi contribue-t-elle à la réussite de la vie en couple?À première vue, il semble que si.Cette opinion peut s'appuyer sur des recherches sociologiques qui démontrent que plus les personnes se marient jeunes, plus leur relation risque d'être instable.Dans une analyse de la population québécoise, L. Roy1 montre que les fem mes qui se marient entre 15 et 19 ans divorcent deux fois plus que celles qui se sont mariées entre 20 et 24 ans, et trois fois plus que celles qui se sont mariées entre 25 et 29 ans.Un autre élément qui semble appuyer cette relation entre la connaissance de soi et la réussite du couple, c'est la durée des fréquentations.En effet, les couples qui se marient suite à une fréquentation de moins d'une année sont beaucoup moins stables dans leur vie de couple que ceux dont les fréquentations ont duré deux ans ou plus1 2. 1. Le divorce au Québec : évolution récente, ministère des Affaires sociales du Gouvernement du Québec, Direction des communications, 1978.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".