MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019348884

Gestion de lâimmigration et politiques dâintégration dans des Etats fédéraux : Belgique et Canada

2016· article· fr· W7019348884 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDigital Access to Libraries · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Policy, and Dickens Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)DiplomacyHegemony
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La Belgique et le Canada sont deux Etats qui expérimentent un fédéralisme (1) dans un cadre multinational (4) et qui ont développé des réponses distinctes aux tensions engendrées par la diversité culturelle et linguistique. Aujourd’hui, ces pays se trouvent également confrontés à la gestion de la diversité induite par l’immigration et doivent opérer des choix importants en ce qui concerne la sélection (2) mais aussi l’intégration des nouveaux arrivants (3). Dans cette optique, cette contribution a pour ambition de comparer ces deux fédérations en ce qui concerne leur gestion de l’immigration et leurs politiques d’intégration des nouveaux arrivants, en particulier d’un point de vue institutionnel et juridique. Quels sont les mécanismes mis en place ? En quoi se distinguent-ils ? Quelles sont les leçons à tirer de chacun des cas ?

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.013
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · 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