Inspirations systémiques. L’expérience d’une fratrie professionnelle québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Des expériences de vie, des repères théoriques et des rencontres inspirantes ont sculpté notre contribution spécifique. Nos conceptions et nos initiatives ont profité de deux grandes sources d’inspiration : la remarquable inventivité des adaptations familiales et les précieux apports de nos collègues d’ici et d’ailleurs. Portés par des valeurs communes, nous avons fait alliance pour relever des défis de compréhension et d’action. En fait, nous cherchions à développer des pratiques d’intervention attentives aux assemblages singuliers entre une personne concernée, sa famille et les équipes d’intervenants. Dans cet article, nous laissons d’abord entrevoir une partie des terrains d’émergence de nos sensibilités cliniques particulières en partageant trois brefs récits issus de nos histoires familiales. Par la suite, nous approfondissons certains thèmes spécifiques en lien avec nos réalisations professionnelles largement inspirées par l’approche systémique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".