La coordination des services aux personnes âgées en France et au Québec : enjeux, expériences et champs de recherche traitant de leur évaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les services aux personnes âgées se sont fortement développés et spécialisés au cours des dernières décennies, mais avec un fractionnement marqué. En France comme au Québec, des expériences de coordination des services ont vu le jour afin d’améliorer la continuité de ces services. Cet article vise à faire ressortir les points communs et les différences qui émergent face aux constats et enjeux de la coordination des services, les différentes expériences de coordination passées et en cours, les équipes de recherche qui oeuvrent à évaluer ces expériences ainsi que les champs de recherche qu’elles ont explorés afin d’en évaluer l’implantation et l’impact sur les clientèles âgées. Enfin, nous soulèverons quelques points de discussion et quelques pistes sur lesquelles porteront les travaux futurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".