MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1574358881 · doi:10.7202/1021538ar

Toutes les organisations ne sont pas égales quant au pouvoir décisionnel de leurs pairs aidants !

2014· article· fr· W1574358881 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janina Komaroff, Michel Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenueDrogues santé et société · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les pairs aidants peuvent être intégrés de différentes façons dans les organisations où ils interviennent. Dans cet article, cinq types de structure organisationnelle où l’on fait appel à des pairs aidants en toxicomanie et en santé mentale sont examinés : les groupes de soutien mutuel, les organisations d’entraide, les organisations autogérées par des pairs aidants, les partenariats avec des organismes de pairs aidants et, enfin, l’intégration des pairs aidants dans des organismes pour dispenser certains services. Cet article met en évidence les conditions qui favorisent l’autonomisation des pairs aidants dans ces différentes situations.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.156 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrogues santé et sociétéSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207