MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1740668643 · doi:10.7202/1028221ar

Parentalité et déficience intellectuelle : exploration des représentations sociales des intervenants impliqués

2014· article· fr· W1740668643 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Élise Milot, Daniel Turcotte, Sylvie Tétreault

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue francophone de la déficience intellectuelle · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude exploratoire québécoise portant sur les constituants des représentations sociales (RS) de la parentalité des personnes ayant une déficience ou une lenteur intellectuelle (DI/LI) (réfère aux personnes ayant un diagnostic établi où ayant des déficits sur les plans cognitif et adaptatif caractéristiques d’une lenteur intellectuelle, aux limites du diagnostic.) chez les intervenants impliqués. Vingt-sept professionnels d’établissements publics et communautaires ont participé à des entrevues individuelles semi-structurées. Des analyses se dégagent des RS plutôt positives. Or, plusieurs facteurs liés à l’expérience ou au contexte de leur pratique y exercent une influence. De leur point de vue, ils ne disposent pas des connaissances nécessaires à une intervention adaptée et l’actualisation du travail de collaboration avec les partenaires est altérée par l’ambiguïté des rôles et les difficultés d’arrimage des mandats. Des recommandations liées aux préoccupations exprimées par les participants sont abordées

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue francophone de la déficience intellectuelleSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207