MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199209931 · doi:10.7202/1033737ar

Accompagner des personnes âgées en couple : un angle mort du travail social

2015· article· fr· W2199209931 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Corinne Dallera, Clothilde Palazzo-Crettol, Annick Anchisi

Bibliographic record

VenueService social · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Actuellement, le nombre de personnes âgées vivant en couple et susceptibles de s’adresser à un service social augmente. Basé sur l’analyse qualitative de 13 entretiens avec des assistants et assistantes sociales accompagnant des personnes âgées et travaillant dans la partie francophone du Valais (un canton de la Suisse), cet article vise à explorer les questions suivantes : d’une part, comment la conjugalité est-elle prise en compte dans le cadre de l’accompagnement social de personnes âgées ? D’autre part, comment les inégalités de genre et les situations de couples conflictuelles sont-elles gérées ? Enfin, comment les prises de décision et les pratiques professionnelles face à ces situations sont-elles justifiées ?

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.307 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueService socialSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207