L'integration Scolaire D'enfants Ayant Une Incapacite: Perceptions Des Parents Quebecois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Que peut‐on apprendre de l’expérience des parents d’enfants ayant une incapacité? Il apparaît important de prendre en considération les perceptions des parents relativement au processus et à la qualité de l’intégration scolaire de leur enfant, d’autant plus que la réforme scolaire québécoise fait de la collaboration école‐famille l’une des six voies d’action en matière d’adaptation scolaire, donc porteuse de transformations des pratiques. Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude de cas réalisée auprès de 24 familles québécoises dont un enfant présente une incapacité. S’inspirant du codage par réseau, le traitement des données a permis de faire ressortir la richesse de la totalité du discours de façon inductive tout en préservant la subtilité et la complexité du discours. Mots clés: inclusion scolaire, intégration scolaire, incapacité, perceptions des parents, expérience dʹintégration What can we learn from the experience of parents of disabled children? It seems important to consider parental perceptions about the process and quality of their child’s integration into the school, especially since the Quebec school reform has made school‐family cooperation one of the six avenues for action in special education, which transforms practices. We present the results of a case study of 24 Quebec families, each with a disabled child. Drawing upon network analysis, our evaluation of the data brought out inductively the richness of all views while preserving their subtlety and complexity. Key words: school inclusion, school integration, disability, parents’ perceptions, integration experience
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".