Travail de rue, reconnaissance et citoyenneté : étude d’un cas montréalais1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente l’étude d’un programme de Travail de rue s’adressant aux jeunes en difficultés dans un arrondissement de la ville de Montréal. Le document vise essentiellement la discussion des effets du programme sur la population desservie. La combinaison de méthodes qualitatives et quantitatives a permis de récolter un riche matériau de recherche de même que d’identifier deux sphères de la vie sociale des jeunes sur lesquelles le travail de rue, une pratique de proximité, semble avoir un effet important : le développement d’un sentiment de reconnaissance et l’exercice de la citoyenneté. Qui plus est, les analyses permettent d’entrevoir dans ce milieu l’impact positif de la pratique du travail de rue, cet impact étant davantage perceptible chez les filles que chez les garçons. Enfin, les particularités du travail de rue en tant que pratique d’intervention, son caractère atypique et les stratégies d’intervention qui y sont reliées sont discutées à différents moment dans cet article.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".