Participation publique et santé mentale : la réponse contrastée et inachevée des utilisateurs de services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this article is show the way that mental health users in Quebec responded to the last Mental Health Action Plan Directive (2005-2010): the strength of the links which were labelled as follows: 'The MSSS, The Health and Social Service Agencies, as well as the Centers of Health and Service Agencies must be sure to obtain the participation of mental health users (and those close to them), in all mental health and planning organizational services.' (MSSS, 2005: p.16) METHOD: The results presented in this article are based on the qualitative exploratory study conducted in the 11 regions of Quebec. In total 35 persons participated in the study, 13 service users, 11 persons coming from institutional environments (interveners and administrators) and 11 key players. RESULTS: The PASM's directive gave rise to a major mobilization of service users who drew up social groupings to engage in the participation activities. As well, it has permitted a generalization and regionalization of participation activities. However, the imprecision regarding the organization of the participants relative to the means required to implement the long-awaited results, has given rise to multiple interpretations, and therefore, to uneven results according to the regions, including the interior of the main region. CONCLUSIONS: The participation of service users will remain a principle whose effects will be contingent, as long as the ministerial willingness will not be accompanied by precise targets to reach, a planned process of rendering of accounts and adequate financing.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".