L'évaluation des relations parents-enfants.
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les parents influencent l'evolution de leur enfant ainsi que sa reussite a l'ecole, dans les sports ou en musique. Leur soutien, par contre, est indispensable. Certains des comportements des parents peuvent avoir un impact negatif. Il est necessaire de chercher a mieux cerner les relations parents-enfant et leur influence sur la reussite et le bien-etre d'un enfant. Pour ce faire, l'utilisation de questionnaires est utile. Toutefois, il existe peu d'outils valides en francais et ceux-ci ne sont pas axes sur l'evaluation de dimensions centrales pour le developpement de l'enfant. Compte tenu de ce manque a combler, cet article a pour objet la validation du Questionnaire d'evaluation des relations parents-enfant (QERPE), traduction en francais de l'EMBU (Egna Minnen Betraffende Uppfostran, Perris et al., 1980). Le QERPE met en evidence le niveau de soutien, de surprotection et de rejet de la part des parents qui est ressenti par l'enfant. Il est ici applique aux relations parents-enfant sportif. La structure factorielle (analyses exploratoire et confirmatoire) et la consistance interne du QERPE ont ete testees, et une validation externe a ete realisee. Les resultats obtenus montrent que les qualites psychometriques du QERPE sont tres acceptables.
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 | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".