La collaboration interprofessionnelle comme modalité pour résoudre les impasses thérapeutiques en pédopsychiatrie : une revue de littérature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’intervention auprès des enfants et des adolescents en clinique de pédopsychiatrie génère un risque d’impasses thérapeutiques élevé pour les cliniciens. L’alourdissement des difficultés des jeunes qui y sont référés et l’obligation pour les professionnels qui y travaillent de collaborer avec les différents acteurs présents auprès de cette clientèle contribuent à cette situation. Les recherches démontrent toutefois qu’il existe un lien positif entre la collaboration interprofessionnelle et l’efficacité des services en santé, et ce, même si son implantation demeure difficile. D’Amour et coll. ont développé un modèle de structuration de la collaboration interprofessionnelle qui permet d’en comprendre les processus. La revue de littérature qui constitue le sujet du présent article explore comment, en extrayant les indicateurs de ce modèle, il serait possible d’aider les professionnels travaillant en clinique de pédopsychiatrie à dénouer les impasses thérapeutiques qu’ils rencontrent.
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 | 0.025 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".