Des rencontres de proximité : le prendre soin de soi des intervenants au coeur de l’intervention solidaire pour joindre les jeunes en marge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outreach work with youths in a precarious situation raises emotions and questions in workers while confronting them with their own suffering and fragility. In order to help them help as well as counter the risk of vicarious traumatisation, spaces for talking and exchanging with a third party have been created in various intervention settings. The objective is to allow them to elaborate on what their work makes them feel and thus preserve their stability and their ability to think. Through group or individual clinical discussions, these exchanges favor distancing and allow new perspectives on their work. That is why peer support appeared as an essential element for psychologists and therapists who support not only youths but the workers who help them. The setting up of our outreach meetings-a result of our observation, allows keeping the flame alive without risking being burned. In this article, the issue of marginality in professionals working with homeless youths-as well as our own-is raised. It sometimes translates in the absence of a fixed location for a meeting symbolizing traditional stability, sometimes in the necessary flexibility of a framework to reach this population, sometimes in the openness to otherness and more precisely to a difference that disturbs when anxiety that this disaffiliated being raises, could well be our very self! Is it really marginality or a particular positioning aiming at constructive denunciation of stigmatization, unjust exclusion that youths with mental health and addiction problems sustain that place them at risk of homelessness? Neither missionaries, nor saviors are needed, but only hopeful facilitators working alongside people who want to stand up and take their place in society.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".