MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259710829 · doi:10.7202/1034143ar

Le placement auprès de personnes significatives au Québec

2015· article· fr· W2259710829 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sonia Hélie, Geneviève Turcotte, Daniel Turcotte, Audrée-Jade Carignan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude propose un premier portrait représentatif des enfants placés auprès d’une personne significative (PS) au Québec après l’entrée en vigueur de nouvelles dispositions législatives en protection de la jeunesse, ainsi que certaines modalités de leur placement. Tous les enfants évalués en protection de la jeunesse en 2007-2008 et placés auprès de PS (n = 941) ou en famille d’accueil (FA) (n = 1 586) avant novembre 2009 sont inclus dans l’étude. Les résultats suggèrent que les enfants confiés à des PS présentent moins de vulnérabilités que les enfants placés en FA. Ils montrent également que le placement auprès de PS est utilisé en début de processus et que l’enfant est retourné chez lui pour l’étape de la prise en charge dans 38 % des cas. Ces résultats sont analysés à la lumière des connaissances actuelles sur ce type de placement dans d’autres pays, et des pistes de réflexion sont dégagées pour améliorer cette pratique de plus en plus fréquente en protection de la jeunesse.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social work reviewSame topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207