Entre santé publique et organisation communautaire : points de convergence et de divergence autour du développement des communautés au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement des communautés a pris un essor important au Québec depuis qu’il a été inscrit comme stratégie transversale dans le Programme national de santé publique en 2003. Reconnue comme une stratégie de promotion de la santé et soutenue par l’action communautaire, la mise en place d’une démarche de développement des communautés suppose toutefois un changement de paradigme de la part de divers acteurs professionnels. En effet, agir dans ce domaine amène deux champs d’intervention à se modifier : la santé publique et l’organisation communautaire. Dans ce texte, nous retraçons l’histoire de ces champs depuis les années 1970 et nous montrons de quelle façon le développement des communautés les incitent aujourd’hui à travailler ensemble. Nous dégageons également les principaux points de convergence et de divergence qui sous-tendent les pratiques liées au développement des communautés de ces deux champs professionnels.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".