Les relations de collaboration entre le secteur public et les organismes communautaires du secteur jeunesse‐enfance‐famille : Entre la sous‐traitance et la coconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: L'État incite les établissements publics et les organismes communautaires à développer et à augmenter la fréquence de leurs relations interorganisationnelles. L'État veut ainsi favoriser une intégration des services permettant une meilleure réponse aux besoins sociaux de la population. Cette étude propose une typologie permettant d'analyser les modèles de relation qui se mettent en place entre ces deux groupes d'acteurs. La recherche s'est intéressée aux interfaces dans le secteur des services sociaux à l'enfance, à la jeunesse et aux familles québécoises. Au total, 111 gestionnaires ont répondu à un questionnaire leur permettant d'évaluer leurs rapports en fonction de quatre dimensions proposées par Coston pour situer les relations entre l'État et les organismes du tiers secteur. Le modèle de relation rapporté par les répondants est celui de la coexistence. Quoique le modèle de relation rapporté par les organismes communautaires et par les établissements publics soit le même, une analyse plus nuancée des résultats permet de constater que les organismes communautaires se perçoivent appartenir à un système plus socio‐étatique (dominé par les établissements de réseau) que les répondants des établissements publics. Abstract: The government encourages public institutions and community organizations to develop and increase the frequency of their inter‐organizational relationships. In doing so, the government seeks the integration of their services in order to meet the social needs of the population more effectively. This study aims to develop a typology for analysing patterns in the relationships being established between these two groups of stakeholders. The research focused on the interfaces in the social service sector for children, youth and families in Quebec. In total, 111 managers responded to a survey that enabled them to assess their relationships on the basis of four dimensions proposed by Coston for analysing relationships between the government and third‐sector organizations. The respondents identified “coexistence” as the most common type of relationships. Although the community organizations and the public institutions identified the same type of relationships, a more nuanced analysis of the survey results reveals that community organizations see themselves as part of a system that is more “socio‐governmental” in nature (i.e., dominated by the institutions in the network) rather than “public.”
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".