Los «peer workers» y la participación de las personas y colectivos en situación de exclusión social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents some results of a research project named Proximité et citoyenneté en milieu urbain. Les leçons dela pratique au Québec, aux Pays-Bas et en Espagne undertaken with the support of the French Government’s Citoyennetéurbaine (PUCA) Program.The aim of this exploratory project is to analyze outreach practices that seek to promote participation of people in verydifficult social and economic situations. Proximity and participation are the two main axes of these practices. The researchwas carried out in Amsterdam, Montreal and Barcelona, and here we present the results for the two latter cities.The focus here is on the primary results that have to do with «existential proximity», i.e., social interventions carriedout by people in similar situations to the target population. Peer workers or pairs aidants have a key role in reaching outto people with little contact with services and institutions, and have a decisive role in enabling the participation of marginalizedgroups. We identify some key elements of such practices, based on interviews with practitioners, peer workersand third sector and public service users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".