Groupes de parole non thérapeutiques pour proches : expériences vécues des acteurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution a pour objectif d’illustrer la mise en oeuvre concrète des principes inhérents à la méthodologie de la théorisation enracinée (MTE) au travers d’une recherche exploratoire ayant pour point de départ les groupes de parole. Ces dispositifs, considérés comme « incontournables » par Galiano et Portalier (2012), renvoient à des pratiques de terrain extrêmement diversifiées. L’étude en cours vise la compréhension des vécus des acteurs de groupes de parole non thérapeutiques pour proches (parents, enfants, conjoints, fratries, etc.) animés par des intervenants professionnels et ciblant des thématiques liées à des événements de vie personnels ou familiaux – moins visibles dans les écrits scientifiques. Les résultats préliminaires, issus d’entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès de 27 informateurs (18 animateurs et 9 participants), situent la souffrance psychique au coeur du processus d’engagement au sein de ces dispositifs.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".