MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2523747952 · doi:10.7202/1033860ar

« Laisser le travail au travail ». La relation d’aide en rééducation des adolescent-e-s

2015· article· fr· W2523747952 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Monique Cournoyer

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La relation d’aide en centre d’accueil pour adolescent-e-s part d’un désir d’aider des jeunes qui traversent d’importantes difficultés. Quels que soient les motifs qui les conduisent au centre d’accueil, ces jeunes sont dans un état de privation ou de souffrance qui leur fait souvent rejeter l’aide offerte. La relation d’aide s’établit donc dès le départ sur des bases affectives évidentes. Sous de nombreux aspects, cette dynamique affective est influencée par le contexte institutionnel : statut d’emploi, sexe, contenu de la tâche, règles d’organisation de vie, rapports sociaux entre catégories de personnel, contraintes légales, etc. À terme, l’ensemble de cette dynamique entraîne des conséquences pour la nature de l’investissement, la relation à l’activité de travail et le désir de rester dans la profession.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicSocial Policies and FamilyFrench-language works237,207