MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7034614171

Ãtude comparative des caractéristiques démogénétiques des populations du Bas-Saguenay, du Haut-Saguenay et du Lac-St-Jean

2003· other· fr· W7034614171 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2003
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationStatistical analysisPopulation structure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La population du Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean a fait l'objet de plusieurs études en génétique des populations. Il a été démontré que quelque 2600 fondateurs arrivés en Nouvelle-France au 17e siècle expliquent 82 % du pool génique de la population régionale contemporaine. Ce mémoire vise à mieux comprendre les origines et la stratification du patrimoine génique saguenayen en étudiant ses sous-régions. Le fichier de population BALSAC a permis de reconstituer les généalogies de 300 individus et d'effectuer diverses analyses démogénétiques. La consanguinité et l'apparentement de même que les valeurs d'occurrence et de recouvrement des ancêtres sont plus élevées au Bas-Saguenay que dans les deux autres sous-régions. On note aussi, au Bas-Saguenay, une plus faible diversité des lieux d'origine des fondateurs mais une diversité patronymique équivalente à celle des autres sous-régions. Alors que le Haut-Saguenay et le Lac-St-Jean présentent plusieurs ressemblances, le Bas-Saguenay se dissocie sur plus d'un plan, y compris un apport plus important de Charlevoix au pool génétique sous-régional. \n

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.177 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→