Application d’une approche de médiation en protection de la jeunesse : qu’en pensent les intervenants ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude qualitative vise à documenter l’expérience d’intervenants de la protection de la jeunesse qui appliquent une approche de médiation. Cette approche repose sur l’identification des besoins de tous les acteurs concernés par une situation et sur le choix d’options susceptibles de mener à un projet d’entente satisfaisant pour toutes les parties. Quatre groupes de discussion ont été organisés dans les trois centres jeunesse participants pour un total de 33 intervenants (25 femmes et 8 hommes). L’analyse du discours des participants permet de décrire : 1) les effets perçus de l’approche de médiation sur les processus d’intervention et sur les familles; 2) les enjeux reliés à l’application de cette approche; 3) les caractéristiques de la clientèle plus propices à l’application de l’approche.
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 | 0.065 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".