MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005342328 · doi:10.1080/19371910802162413

CLSCs in Quebec: Thirty Years of Community Action

2008· article· en· W2005342328 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benoît Gaumer, Marie‐Josée Fleury

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Public Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsContext (archaeology)Action (physics)Community healthCommunity organizationNeighbourhood (mathematics)Health careMental healthPolitical scienceSocial workEconomic growthSociologyMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local community service centres (CLSCs) emerged in Quebec in the early 1970s, in the context of the reform of Quebec's healthcare system and the North American movement for popular clinics or Neighbourhood Health Centers. The first CLSCs-primary healthcare institutions before the World Health Organization (WHO) popularized the concept-were mandated to offer a range of basic health and social services, while developing community action. The latter, defined as the art and method of getting the population to take part in identifying and solving health and social problems through information, education and group discussions, gradually asserted itself, thanks to the activism of a new category of professionals: community practitioners. Covering the entire province, throughout their existence, the 160 CLSCs were veritable laboratories for community organizations and a remarkable creative force behind the development of a policy of home support services and mental health in the community. Although their structure changed many times, particularly in the current context of reform to implement 95 local integrated service networks in the province, it continues to be a source of inspiration and of major actors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.650
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.404
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Work in Public HealthSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207