L'intervention En Contexte De Nature et D'aventure: Differences et Similitudes Entre Les Programmes Educatifs et Les Programmes Therapeutiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’intervention en contexte de nature et d’aventure (INA) est de plus en plus utilisee dansles milieux d’intervention. Cette situation tient notamment au fait que plusieurs travaux lui attribuent des effets positifs sur les plans personnel et interpersonnel. La popularite de cette modalite d’intervention fait toutefois en sorte que plusieurs programmes se revendiquant de l’INA sont proposes, sans pour autant presenter les caracteristiques qui sont a la base de son efficacite. Ce texte vise a apporter des precisions sur les caracteristiques des programmes qui relevent de l’INA en distinguant les deux formes les plus repandues, soit les programmes a visee educative et les programmes a visee therapeutique. Ils sont decrits au regard de leurs objectifs, leur utilisation et leurs effets. Ces composantes sont mises en relief pour faire ressortir les elements qui concourent a l’efficacite de l’INA.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".