Que pourrait-on faire pour mieux soutenir les aidants familiaux? : Le point de vue des principaux intéressés
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une étude réalisée récemment au Saguenay–Lac-St-Jean, soixante aidants familiaux (enfants et/ou leur conjoint) apportant leur soutien et des soins à un ou l’autre de leur parent ou beau parent âgé de 65 ans et plus, et quatorze intervenants rémunérés, ont fait part de leurs recommandations en ce qui a trait au soutien à offrir aux aidants informels (Allaire, 2006 ; Maltais, Lachance Richard, & Ouellet, 2006). Cet article vise à présenter les recommandations les plus souvent émises par ces répondants tout en faisant des liens entre les politiques publiques de soutien aux aidants et les revendications de ces derniers. La première section apporte des informations \nsur le contexte de l’étude tandis que les deux autres \nfont le point sur les principales recommandations émises par les deux types de répondants.
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 | 0.044 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".