Les pratiques de concertation en santé mentale : trois modèles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un aspect majeur des récentes politiques québécoises concernant le système de santé, et le système de santé mentale en particulier, réside dans l'encouragement à la « concertation » entre partenaires : établissements du réseau, organismes communautaires, personnes dispensant des soins sur une base formelle et informelle, et bénéficiaires. Mais concertation pour quoi faire ? À partir d'une recherche exploratoire dans trois sous-régions de Montréal, nous décrivons et analysons différentes pratiques de concertation mises en oeuvre par les intervenants sur le terrain. Nous faisons l'hypothèse que les pratiques dans chacune des trois sous-régions révèlent une cohérence propre et des caractéristiques distinctives, selon la configuration des ressources de la sous-région, mais aussi selon le modèle de concertation envisagé par les « partenaires » dominants dans la sous-région. Or, nous avons identifié trois modèles de concertation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".