MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022380481 · doi:10.1002/shi.225

L'Arche communities – a challenge for gentleness

2004· article· en· W2022380481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Thérèse Vanier

Bibliographic record

VenueSpirituality and Health International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthosOfficerSociologyEnvironmental ethicsLawAestheticsManagementPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thomas Philippe, a French Dominican friar, and Jean Vanier, a Canadian philosopher and former naval officer, founded the first L'Arche community in France in 1964. L'Arche has now become an international federation of some 120 communities. In the 1960s and 1970s it was seen as a groundbreaking movement and as a leader in the development of non‐institutional and life‐affirming approaches to caring for those with learning disabilities. The term ‘mental handicap’ was more commonly used at the time that L'Arche was founded. The ethos of a caring community underpinned by spiritual and religious values has provided a much‐admired and emulated model. It has not been without its costs, however, and the communities, like others involved in caring, are having to address some fundamental issues concerning the impact on carers and the way in which the vision of the founders can be developed and sustained in the future. This personal account and reflection, by the sister of one of the founders, is built on her experience of L'Arche in the UK. It sets out some of the challenges facing the creation of a caring environment for both carers and cared for. Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0280.023
Scholarly communication0.0170.015
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0090.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.349
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpirituality and Health InternationalSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207