Les différentes perceptions d'accessibilité aux services pour les sourds à Montréal : l'accessibilité spatiale, les coûts, l'organisation des ressources, la disponibilité et l'acceptabilité.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une précédente étude québécoise portant sur le vécu des Sourds lorsqu’ils font appel aux services de santé a démontré que ce qui devait être une source d’aide en devient une d’anxiété(Parisé, 1999). L'objectif principal de ce mémoire est d'analyser les niveaux et les problèmes \nd'accessibilité aux services pour les Sourds sur l'île de Montréal, et ce, en tenant compte des cinq dimensions de l’accessibilité développées par Pechansky et Thomas (1981) que sont l'accessibilité spatiale des services, leur disponibilité, leur organisation, leur coût et leur \nacceptabilité. Ce mémoire explore trois questions de recherche : quel est le niveau d’accessibilité spatiale des \nSourds aux services tel que mesuré de façon objective par les systèmes d’information géographique (SIG) et y a-t-il des territoires non desservis et, si oui, où les retrouve-t-on? Quel est le niveau d'accessibilité des Sourds, selon les cinq dimensions d'accessibilité aux ressources ou services urbains en question sur l'île de Montréal? Quelles sont les dimensions de l'accessibilité les plus valorisées par les Sourds? Afin de répondre à ces questions, nous avons privilégié une approche mixte, qui déploie les SIG \net l’analyse spatiale, ainsi que les entretiens semi-dirigés auprès de 15 Sourds, cinq leaders Sourds et cinq interprètes, pour un total de 25 participants. Les résultats quantitatifs ont démontré l’existence de déserts de services à l’ouest et à l’est de l’île de Montréal, ainsi qu’une abondance de services pour les Sourds au centre. Le volet qualitatif a permis de documenter les principaux obstacles rencontrés par les Sourds, ainsi que d’identifier les dimensions de l’accessibilité qu’ils valorisent le plus, qui sont l’acceptabilité et la disponibilité. De plus, le plein accès aux services passe principalement par les compétences en langue des signes ainsi que par l’attitude appropriée des pourvoyeurs de services The findings from a previous study examining Deaf people’s experiences with health care providers, conducted in Quebec, show how a source of support becomes a source of anxiety (Parisé 1999). This study aims to analyze various layers and issues related to Deaf services \naccess on the island of Montreal. The analysis is based on Pechansky and Thomas’ five accessibility dimensions, including spatial accessibility, availability, accommodation, affordability and acceptability (1981). \nThree main research questions investigated in this study are: how accessible are Deaf services, according to objective measures based on geographical information systems (GIS) and are there service deserts and, if so, where are they? According to the five dimensions, how \naccessible are Island of Montreal urban Deaf services and resources? Which dimensions are most valued by Deaf people? \nTo investigate these research questions, a combined approach, including GIS and spatial analysis, was utilized, as well as semi-structured interviews with 15 Deaf people, five Deaf leaders, and five interpreters, for a total of 25. Quantitative results reveal service deserts in the \neast and west areas of the island of Montreal, and an abundance of Deaf services in the center. Qualitative findings allowed us to document common barriers as encountered by Deaf people as well as determine their priorities in terms of accessibility, which turn out to be acceptability and availability. Also, in order to obtain full access to Deaf services, one must be fluent in sign \nlanguage and service providers need to have the appropriate attitude.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".