MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470182678 · doi:10.7202/1033859ar

L’évaluation professionnelle des demandes d’adoption : la composante affective et l’approche biographique

2015· article· fr· W2470182678 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Françoise-Romaine Ouellette, Johanne Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’adoption est une pratique juridique lourde de conséquences. Toutefois, culturellement, elle est d’abord définie comme une réalité affective, comme un geste d’amour. Les travailleuses sociales chargées d’examiner les demandes d’adoption doivent circonscrire ce champ affectif de l’adoption pour l’introduire dans une logique de contrôle et de jugement. L’approche biographique joue un rôle important dans cette démarche. Elle balise le terrain de l’intervention en l’axant prioritairement sur les dimensions individuelle et psychologique; elle contribue à différentes opérations de définition et de catégorisation des éléments d’une adoption (abandon, enfant, parents...); enfin, elle s’articule à un processus d’intériorisation, par les postulants à l’adoption, des normes et critères professionnels de l’évaluation.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.008
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.414
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207