MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021763112 · doi:10.3917/reli.026.0079

Ce que disent les personnes déficientes intellectuelles de leur parentalité

2008· article· fr· W2021763112 on OpenAlexaff
Virginie Leroux, Régine Scelles

Bibliographic record

VenueReliance · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsThe Alberta Paraplegic Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Peu d’études s’intéressent à la parentalité de la personne déficiente intellectuelle et celles réalisées à ce jour ont cherché à évaluer les compétences de ces parents ou l’impact de leur déficience sur le comportement de leur(s) enfant(s). Elles s’appuient essentiellement sur le discours des familles et des professionnels qui entourent ces parents ou sur des rapports sociaux. Prenant appui sur le discours de trois femmes et quatre hommes concernant leur manière de vivre leur parentalité, les auteurs montrent que ces hommes et ces femmes sont conscients des conséquences de leurs déficiences et de leurs blessures d’enfance sur leurs relations avec leurs enfants. Elles ouvrent des pistes pour concevoir des aides qui ne les disqualifient pas dans leur identité de parent.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.296 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRelianceSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207