MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1836491770

Donner la parole aux jeunes et faire entendre leurs voix : défis d'une recherche auprès de jeunes d'origine haïtienne à Montréal

2014· article· fr· W1836491770 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gina Lafortune

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEarly Childhood Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’appuie sur une recherche doctorale (Lafortune, 2012) menee aupres de jeunes Montrealais d’origine haitienne. Dans le cadre d’entretiens individuels a caractere biographique, ces derniers etaient invites a raconter leur experience socioscolaire depuis la maternelle. Il leur etait egalement demande de recommander des personnes significatives de leur environnement familial, scolaire et communautaire a meme de parler d’eux. Le point de vue de ces personnes devait permettre de degager une vue systemique de la trajectoire socioscolaire. L’approche s’est revelee tres fructueuse en raison de la richesse des informations collectees. Toutefois, elle a aussi pose des defis relatifs au traitement de la parole des jeunes, parole parfois menacee d’etre couverte par la voix des personnes significatives ou celle de la chercheuse. L’article traite de ces defis a partir d’un des cas etudies. Abstract This article is based on doctoral research (Lafortune, 2012) conducted among young native Haitians in Montreal. They were invited to share their socio-academic experience since kindergarten through in-depth biographical interviews. They were asked to designate significant persons from their family, school, and community who could also be interviewed, so that a systemic view of the participants’ socio-academic trajectory could emerge. This approach was very successful and yielded rich data. However, challenges emerged regarding how to bring out the youths’ voices in the presentation and interpretation of the interviews so that they would not be drowned out by the voices of those significant others who were also interviewed. The article discusses these challenges in light of one of the case studies.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0180.011
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation→Same topicEarly Childhood Education and Development→French-language works237,207→