MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120228357 · doi:10.7202/301407ar

Issue pour le renouvellement des pratiques en protection de la jeunesse : une organisation du travail en provenance de la base

2008· article· fr· W2120228357 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Paul Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avec la création des Centres de services sociaux (CSS) et des Directions de la protection de la jeunesse (DPJ) au cours et à la fin des années 1970, on voit graduellement s'insinuer la prépondérance des rapports de travail dans le domaine. L'application concrète des mesures comprises dans les Rapports Harvey I et II au sein des DPJ témoigne ensuite d'un effort peu commun de formalisation des opérations de l'intervention sociale. Cet effort ravive, avec les changements nombreux qui suivront, la question de l'exclusion ou de la participation des intervenants à l'organisation du travail. Peut-on parler de renouvellement des pratiques en protection de la jeunesse et si oui, quelles sont les conditions susceptibles d'en voir l'éclosion? S'il faut en croire les premières conclusions d'une recherche menée auprès du personnel-intervenant de la Direction de la protection de la jeunesse de Québec, un tel renouvellement s'observe. Les conditions de son émergence ont alors trait à quelques facteurs indissociables comprenant un mode de fonctionnement par petit groupe autonome, une spécialisation accrue de ces groupes par problématique, une action concertée avec l'environnement et le milieu. Nous découvrons là l'expression d'une démocratie de base dans le travail dont le caractère premier est d'être à la fois plus organique et moins « délégative ».

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Qualitativelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0210.028
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207