L’insertion sociale des personnes handicapées au Québec : comment l’État vient-il soutenir le tiers secteur et les familles ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche québécoise sur le rôle de l’État et du tiers secteur dans l’évolution de la politique concernant les populations ayant une déficience intellectuelle et qui s’est déroulée de l’été 2007 à l’été 2009. La recherche porte sur deux champs d’action : les initiatives favorisant l’emploi des personnes (plutôt que leur seul soutien financier) et la vie en logement (plutôt que le placement en maison d’hébergement). Ses objectifs consistent d’une part à documenter de manière systématique les initiatives mises en place par des organismes communautaires, des associations de parents, ou des établissements publics, à travers l’ensemble des régions du Québec, et, d’autre part, à faire ressortir les mécanismes interorganisationnels existant entre acteurs du tiers secteur et établissements publics. La recherche vise aussi à nourrir la réflexion concernant la construction de politiques sociales et l’évaluation de celles-ci. This article presents the findings of a study carried out across Québec between 2007 and 2009 on the role of the State and the nonprofit sector in the evolution of policies in the domain of intellectual disability. The research deals with two fields of activity in social participation: initiatives that encourage employment (as opposed to supported income) and specialized housing initiaves (in contrast to placement in homes or public institutions). The resarch goals for the study are twofold: to survey on a systematic basis throughout Québec the initiatives set out by community organizations, family associations, or the public sector; and, to single out the interorganisational mechanisms put forward by the public and the third sector. The study also aims to stimulate reflection on the renewal of social policies and their evaluation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".