Pratique réflexive et organisation communautaire : le point de vue de professionnels sur la stratégie de soutien au développement des communautés en santé publique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les organisateurs communautaires (OC) des Centres de santé et services sociaux du Québec 1 sont appelés à mettre en oeuvre la stratégie de soutien au développement des communautés afin d’améliorer la santé de la population. Quoiqu’elle soit inscrite dans les documents de santé publique depuis 2003, on sait peu de choses sur la stratégie. Afin de comprendre son effet sur la pratique des OC, les chercheurs ont mis en place un groupe de pratique réflexive. Quatre rencontres ont permis d’analyser les perceptions des participants quant à leur pratique et d’en dégager les principales composantes de la réflexivité selon Issitt (2003). Il fut démontré que la mise en place du groupe a favorisé l’émergence d’une réflexivité formative et critique qui s’est traduite par divers mécanismes de soutien à la pratique.
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 | 0.067 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".