MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008342895 · doi:10.7202/706667ar

Évaluation de signalement en utilisant l’approche de réseaux. Comment faire participer le milieu à la résolution de problème

2005· article· fr· W2008342895 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rick Cote

Bibliographic record

VenueService social · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des dernières années, la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ) a fourni un cadre légal aux intervenants sociaux travaillant en CPEJ. Les intervenants se sentent souvent coincés entre leur rôle d'aidant et leur mandat légal. Cette situation est encore plus difficile en évaluation de signalement en protection de la jeunesse. Le présent article propose un modèle d'évaluation en contexte de protection, avec l'approche de réseaux, pour les jeunes qui présentent des troubles de comportement. Ce modèle vise à faire participer, de façon active, la famille dans le processus d'évaluation/orientation d'un signalement retenu.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.074
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.074
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueService socialSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207