MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613132585 · doi:10.7202/1034823ar

Une démarche communautaire à partir de soins infirmiers

2016· article· fr· W2613132585 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Sagot, M.-F. Collières, E. Maurel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’Union nationale des Associations de centres de soins a été créée en 1974 pour s’opposer à la fois au contrôle étatique et aux pratiques de soins libérales. Il s’agit de « promouvoir une nouvelle organisation des soins, en liaison avec l’animation sociale et culturelle du quartier et avec la participation directe des usagers ». Tous les centres adhérents à l’UNACS ont un conseil d’administration où les usagers sont majoritaires; les financeurs (Caisse maladies, Mairies) n’ont aucun siège de droit. Les usagers appartiennent généralement à des organisations syndicales ou politiques de « gauche », non-communistes à tendance auto-gestionnaire. Les Centres de soins fraient la voie à des rapports sociaux nouveaux : en remettant en cause les rapports soignant-soigné, dominant-dominé, en permettant l’interpénétration du champ professionnel et du champ politique, en modifiant les rapports de travail et de pouvoir entre les partenaires en présence. On présente deux exemples concrets de centres de soins (soins infirmiers et aides-ménagères).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.332

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207