Augmenter l’utilisation des données probantes par les intervenants et les gestionnaires en centre jeunesse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis une dizaine d’années, une importance accrue est accordée à l’utilisation des données probantes afin d’améliorer la qualité des services psychosociaux offerts aux jeunes et aux familles en difficulté. Malgré cet intérêt, la connaissance des conditions favorables afin de soutenir l’utilisation des données probantes dans les milieux d’intervention est limitée et doit être développée. En se fondant sur l’examen de la littérature et sur une recherche qualitative, la présente étude examine les besoins, en matière de données probantes, de 15 gestionnaires et 15 intervenants travaillant en centre jeunesse au Québec. L’étude suggère que la production de données adaptées aux besoins des intervenants et des gestionnaires, présentées dans un format adéquat et respectant les standards de validité scientifique, permet de favoriser leur utilisation.
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 | 0.045 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".