MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056419750

Évaluation du tempérament de l'enfant de quatre à huit mois : une étude psychométrique d'un instrument d'évaluation parentale du tempérament, le RITQ

2020· other· fr· W7056419750 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCorpus Université Laval (Université Laval) · 2020
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValidation testContext (archaeology)Family lifeHistory of sociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce mémoire a pour objectif de faire le point sur certaines qualités métriques d'un instrument d'évaluation parentale du tempérament de l'enfant, le RITQ de Carey et McDevitt (1978), traduit en français et utilisé au Québec (Maziade, Boudreault, Thivierge, Caperaa et Côté, 1984). En raison de certains problèmes métriques, confirmés par la présente étude, notamment le manque de convergence entre les classifications par types de tempéraments résultant des évaluations des pères et des mères, l'influence de certaines variables sur l'évaluation parentale a été vérifiée. Les résultats de l'analyse de régression multiple et de l'analyse canonique discriminante, effectuées sur les questionnaires de 99 nouveaux parents de nourrissons âgés de huit mois, montrent que les variables parentales et environnementales, telles que le stress psychologique, la non-disponibilité et la difficulté de concilier vie familiale et travail, pour les mères et, pour les pères, la non-disponibilité, le temps passé avec l'enfant et la participation aux tâches parentales, jouent un rôle important et différent (selon le sexe du parent) sur l'évaluation parentale du nourrisson.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCorpus Université Laval (Université Laval)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→