Qualité Et Conditions De Collaboration Avec Les Familles Perçues Par Le Personnel De Réadaptation En Milieu Psychiatrique Et De Déficience Physique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the point of view of professionals working with traumatic brain injury (TBI) clients or people with schizophrenic disorders towards their collaboration with clients' families. Four hundred and thirty professionals from 3 different regions in the province of Quebec took part in the study. They were recruited from psychiatric and general hospitals and physical rehabilitation centres. The results of the study point up that conditions for collaboration with families are better for respondents working with TBI clients than for respondents in the psychiatric sector. Furthermore, the results showed that respondents working with TBI clients are significantly more satisfied with their working conditions and the services they deliver and perceive a higher degree of collaboration with families than mental health workers. Another finding of the study is that personnel intervening in an interdisciplinary team reported a higher degree of collaboration with families than respondents working in a multidisciplinary team setting or individually. In the same vein, respondents who received training regarding intervention with families during their practice or during their academic training reported a higher degree of collaboration with their clients' families.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".