Do you speak English? Traitement sociopolitique de l’accessibilité aux services en santé mentale pour les anglophones du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la fin des années 1970, le Québec se dote de la Charte de la langue française (Loi 101), qui modifie l’encadrement de la question de la langue de prestation des services de santé et de services sociaux. Parallèlement, de nombreux rapports, comités d’étude et politiques modifient en profondeur les pratiques institutionnelles et communautaires à l’endroit des personnes aux prises avec des problèmes de santé mentale. Depuis ce contexte de grandes transformations, où certaines réponses politiques ont été apportées aux préoccupations linguistiques, qu’en est-il de l’accès aux soins de santé mentale pour les anglophones du Québec ? Nous proposons de retracer dans ses grandes lignes l’évolution du traitement sociopolitique qui a été fait de la question de l’accessibilité des services en santé mentale pour les personnes anglophones en accordant une attention particulière à la situation montréalaise.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".