Introduction d’une stratégie d’évaluation dans la réhabilitation psychiques adultes en Belgique : approche d’une adéquation des programmes aux besoins des bénéficiaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article rend compte de l'implantation d'une stratégie d'évaluation dans un centre de réadaptation socio-professionnelle. Dans ce projet, les instruments de mesure ont été développés avec le double souci de permettre une évaluation clinique individuelle qui soit utile pour les intervenants et une évaluation de l'évolution de la clientèle qui puisse permettre d'observer les effets de ces interventions auprès de groupes de clients. Après qu'on eût constaté, suite à l'analyse d'une première série de données, que le programme avait des difficultés à retenir sa clientèle, une seconde étude a permis d'établir le profil des clients chez qui le programme avait produit des effets positifs et celui des clients pour qui le séjour au centre n'a pas eu .d'effets significatifs.
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 | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".