L’intervention de quartier à Sherbrooke, ou quand le CLSC s’installe à la porte d’à côté
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le texte décrit et analyse les pratiques d’intervention de quartier (IQ) telles qu’elles se sont déployées dans leurs contextes particuliers, pour ensuite mettre en lumière les effets perçus par les diverses parties prenantes (intervenants, partenaires du milieu, gestionnaires). Les deux territoires d’intervention (Ascot et Jardins-Fleuris) ont la particularité d’être parmi les plus défavorisés de Sherbrooke tout en ayant une forte densité de population. Le modèle logique opérationnel d’intervention se traduit par cinq orientations : 1) tenir compte des particularités des personnes et des milieux, 2) agir dans la proximité, 3) intervenir de façon proactive, 4) favoriser une dimension relationnelle et 5) réguler de façon continue l’intervention. De fait, l’intervention clinique et communautaire s’articule entre elles sur un territoire, ce qui constitue la grande originalité du projet d’intervention. L’évaluation des résultats de cette initiative est très positive et peut constituer une source d’inspiration.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.002 |
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".