MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151149623 · doi:10.7202/044396ar

Les perceptions d’adolescents cérébrolésés, de leurs parents et des professionnels impliqués dans leur inclusion sociale

2010· article· fr· W2151149623 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jérôme Gauvin‐Lepage, Hélène Lefebvre

Bibliographic record

VenueEnfances Familles Générations · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkJewish Rehabilitation Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesInclusion (mineral)Political sciencePsychologyArtSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude qualitative a pour but d'explorer les perceptions d’adolescents, de leurs parents et de professionnelles quant à l'inclusion sociale d’adolescents ayant vécu un traumatisme craniocérébral (TCC) modéré. Le modèle écologique de Bronfenbrenner (1979, 1986), adapté par Lefebvre et Levert (2005) auprès de la clientèle TCC, est utilisé comme cadre de référence. Des entrevues semi-dirigées ont été réalisées auprès d’adolescents cérébrolésés et leurs parents. Les résultats montrent que les perceptions des familles portent sur différents aspects de leur vie, indiquant une multitude de répercussions qui facilitent ou contraignent l’inclusion sociale de l’adolescent TCC modéré. En général, les professionnelles partagent les mêmes perceptions qu’eux. Les résultats de cette étude devraient permettre aux professionnels de la santé une meilleure compréhension de l'inclusion sociale vécue par ces personnes, en plus d'offrir des balises permettant à ceux-ci de mieux soutenir l'inclusion sociale d’adolescents TCC et de venir en aide aux familles dans cette situation difficile.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnfances Familles GénérationsSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207