MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982885248

La démographie du Canada et des États-Unis des années 1980 aux années 2000. Synthèse des changements et bilan statistique

2012· article· fr· W6982885248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationFertilityTotal fertility ratePopulationSub-replacement fertilityInequalityInfant mortality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada and the United States have enjoyed vigorous population growth since the early 1980s. Although mortality is slightly higher in the United States than in Canada, this is largely offset by much higher fertility, with a total fertility rate at replacement level, compared with just 1.5 children per woman in Canada. The United States is also the world?s largest immigrant receiving country, although its immigration rate is only half that of Canada, where today one person in five is foreign-born, versus one in eight in the United States. Based on recent trends in fertility, mortality and international migration, the populations of these two North American countries will continue to grow over the next five decades, but at a progressively slower pace. The must acute demographic issue today is not, as in Europe, that of imminent population decline, but rather of the geographic and social inequalities which have increased steadily since the early 1980s and which are reflected in major fertility and health differentials between regions and social groups.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.032
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.307 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicPolicing Practices and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207