MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2420926687 · doi:10.7202/1033805ar

Aider et intervenir : essai de clarification de quelques difficultés

2015· article· fr· W2420926687 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Claude Nélisse

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article réexamine l’antinomie entre « aidant naturel » et « intervenant professionnel » en les présentant comme deux points de tension sur un même continuum, celui de la logique de travail dite de l’aide. En opposition à cette dernière, l’auteur précise quelques traits propres à une seconde logique, celle de l’intervention. Le texte se termine par une proposition d’analyse et un jugement sur le glissement de vocabulaire qui nous a fait passer de l’aide à l’intervention. Aider n’est pas intervenir : tel est l’argument maintenu tout au long de la présentation.

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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.053
Scholarly communication0.0180.026
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0130.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207