MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6992474498

Les producteurs majeurs sur la question des femmes dans les centres universitaires de criminologie au Canada

2008· report· fr· W6992474498 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2008
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Research methodologyPublicsGender identity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La recherche sur «La production sur la question des femmes dans les centres universitaires de criminologie au Canada de 1964 à 1989» a permis de repérer les “producteurs majeurs” sur ce sujet, c’est-à-dire ceux pour qui la “question des femmes” a constitué, entre 1964 et 1989, une préoccupation importante et relativement durable. Leurs oeuvres portaient soit sur la place faite au “genre” et à la question des femmes dans la théorisation en criminologie, soit sur les femmes comme auteures d’infractions ou victimes, soit sur le traitement fait aux femmes dans les services correctionnels et pénaux. Des entrevues en profondeur, dans les centres universitaires concernés, ont été effectuées avec les vingt-et-une personnes considérées comme “producteurs majeurs” (21 sur 125 auteurs possibles). Le rapport décrit les itinéraires intellectuels de ces producteurs, leur orientation théorique en criminologie en général et sur la question des femmes en particulier. Le rapport rapporte les conditions de production, c’est-à-dire l’intérêt (ou le manque d’intérêt et de support) tel que perçu par les interviewés, pour la question des femmes dans les divers centres de criminologie.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207