MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2777942587

Le droit aux services d’ergothérapie en CLSC entre légalité et légitimité

2008· article· fr· W2777942587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annie Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke) · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé: L'article 5 de la Loi sur les services de santé et les services sociaux reconnaît à chaque personne un droit d'accès aux services de santé, incluant les services d'ergothérapie à domicile. La réalité clinique des listes d'attente, conséquence d'une inadéquation entre demandes de services et ressources pour y répondre, soulève un questionnement en regard de la mise en oeuvre de ce droit. Cet essai se veut une analyse juridique et éthique de la réalité québécoise en matière d'accès aux services d'ergothérapie à domicile. L'analyse révèle, entre autres, que l'utilisation parfois aléatoire des critères de priorité sous la pression de la liste d'attente, la réponse partielle aux besoins complexes de certains usagers et les délais indus avant d'accéder aux services d'ergothérapie à domicile constituent des atteintes à l'équité d'accès et compromettent le droit d'accès. L'auteure explore l'hypothèse que les normes professionnelles puissent être une voie à privilégier pour une optimisation de l'allocation des ressources, assurant un juste équilibre entre la distribution des services ergothérapiques et leur qualité.|| Abstract: Article 5 of the Act respecting health services and social services specifies that every person is entitled to receive health services, and that includes occupational therapy (OT) services in the community. The discrepancy between requests for OT services and OT resources results in significant waiting lists, which raise questions about implementation of people's right to services. This essay is a legal and ethical analysis of Québec's reality regarding access to OT services in the community. lt is shown, among other things, that the use of sometimes random criteria to prioritize requests due in part to the pressure of the waiting list, the partial response to the complex needs of some users and the long waiting period before receiving the sought-after services are all elements which affect equal access and compromise right to services. The writer explores the use of professional guidelines has a mean to ensure balance between distributive justice and quality of OT services and therefore, optimization of health resources allocation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.632
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge UdeS (Institutional Deposit of the University of Sherbrooke)Same topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207