MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023764017 · doi:10.3917/rief.024.0099

Savoirs informels des familles et savoirs professionnels de la santé : mieux répondre aux besoins des familles d'un enfant ayant une déficience

2008· article· fr· W2023764017 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Pelchat, Hélène Lefebvre, Marie‐Josée Levert, Claire David

Bibliographic record

VenueLa revue internationale de l éducation familiale · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cet article présente les résultats de trois groupes de discussion, dont deux groupes de parents : un groupe de parents d’enfants ayant une trisomie 21 (T21) et un groupe de parents d’enfants ayant une déficience motrice cérébrale (DMC) et un groupe de professionnels de la santé impliqués auprès de ces clientèles. Il s’agit d’un projet pilote qui a pour objectifs d’identifier, du point de vue des parents d’enfants ayant une déficience et des professionnels de la santé impliqués auprès d’eux, les sources d’information des familles, les stratégies utilisées pour l’obtenir et son impact sur leur adaptation. Les résultats montrent que l’information recherchée par les parents concerne le problème de santé, les soins et les ressources disponibles, qu’ils consultent les professionnels de la santé, d’autres parents et les médias. L’information obtenue par les parents a un impact sur leur adaptation à la situation de santé et sur leur relation avec les professionnels. Enfin, des recommandations sont proposées par les parents et les professionnels en regard des interventions.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.055
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.055
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLa revue internationale de l éducation familialeSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207