MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7067364659

Les sources d'incohérences des initiatives de financement du logement social au Nicaragua

2009· other· fr· W7067364659 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2009
Typeother
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Social impactPublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Nicaragua connaît un déficit en logement très préoccupant. Celui-ci est du en grande partie à l’incapacité du secteur financier à satisfaire la demande des familles à faible revenu. De nombreuses initiatives ont été mises en place par des organismes provenant des trois sphères sociétales pour pallier ce problème. Certains l’ont fait avec succès d’autres sans. Aujourd’hui bien que ces initiatives aient comme objectif de répondre au problème existant, le déficit continu de se creuser.\nCe mémoire propose une analyse des causes du problème afin de comprendre pourquoi les initiatives mises en place ne fonctionnent pas comme elles le devraient. Il met en avant le manque de coordination qui existe enter les acteurs et démontre que l’ensemble du secteur fonctionne selon une organisation « en silo » révélatrice d’un manque de cohérence des politiques de financement du logement. Enfin il analyse les origines possibles d’une telle organisation et des incohérences politiques qui l’ont amenée. Par cette analyse, il tente de déterminer la part de responsabilité relative imputable à l’État nicaraguayen et à l’Aide Publique au Développement qui est la principale source de fonds de tous ces programmes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicAttachment and Relationship Dynamics→French-language works237,207→