MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747356931 · doi:10.7202/1040753ar

La participation et l’action militante des comités de parents à travers l’évolution sociohistorique des maisons de naissance québécoises

2017· article· fr· W2747356931 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roxanne Lorrain

Bibliographic record

VenueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaire · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article suivant examine la participation des usagères dans les maisons de naissance du Québec en analysant son évolution sociohistorique, et ce, du point de vue des comités de parents. Il s’appuie sur une recherche qualitative menée auprès de femmes membres de comités de parents pour comprendre comment les groupes militants s’organisent et développent des moyens d’action concrets, novateurs, adaptés à leur réalité et répondant aux besoins de leur collectivité. Cet article propose de situer la problématique à l’étude en abordant les contextes historique, politique, juridique et institutionnel, ainsi qu’en présentant la pratique sage-femme. Les résultats de recherche, analysés selon un cadre conceptuel de la participation, permettent d’identifier le désir des femmes de s’engager dans une maternité respectée, pour elles-mêmes et leur collectivité, de dégager une typologie des comités de parents et de leurs activités, de cerner les défis rencontrés et les stratégies déployées par les usagères et, enfin, d’aborder leurs perspectives sur leur participation au sein des comités.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.288 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaireSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207