MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142861177 · doi:10.1016/j.alter.2011.08.001

Définir l’aide humaine en France

2011· article· fr· W2142861177 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlter · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceEthnologySociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En France, plus de 760 000 personnes en situation de handicap sollicitent une ou plusieurs aides humaines professionnelles ou non professionnelles avec une prépondérance pour les aidants familiaux. Leur présence auprès des personnes en situation de handicap est indispensable à leur vie. Les aidants apparaissent pluriels et les définir peut s’avérer délicat. En effet, quel que soit le cadre sociojuridique de la sollicitation de l’aide humaine, la notion d’aidant revêt à la fois un caractère financier et un caractère humain, c’est-à-dire la personne d’aidant elle-même. Compte tenu des enjeux humains et financiers pouvant alors restreindre leur présence, il nous est apparu nécessaire de définir au mieux cet aidant en s’intéressant plus particulièrement à sa définition en droit social et en droit du dommage corporel.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.007

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.299 · 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