MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948256092 · doi:10.3917/entin.039.0031

Une aventure intrapreneuriale au service des sans-abri

2019· article· fr· W2948256092 on OpenAlexaff
Ann-Charlotte Teglborg, Alison Fuller, Susan Halford, Kate Lyle, Rebecca Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueEntreprendre & Innover · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La mort d’un sans-abri sur les marches d’un hôpital londonien constitue un traumatisme organisationnel, tant l’événement choque le corps médical et révèle l’incapacité du système à prendre en charge les problèmes liés à l’itinérance. Un Professeur reconnu mène une enquête remettant en question la prise en charge des exclus par le NHS 1 , puis entreprend d’imaginer une solution innovante et de constituer une équipe médicale dotée d’un fort esprit entrepreneurial. Celle-ci crée une entité ‘Side by side’ (SBS) 2 dédiée aux sans-abri, au sein de l’hôpital. Composée d’un médecin, d’une infirmière et de trois carenavigators ayant tous vécu dans la rue, l’équipe est à l’écoute de ces patients aux besoins médicaux et sociaux complexes. Ses membres coordonnent les soins hospitaliers et accompagnent leur sortie de l’hôpital en trouvant des solutions d’hébergement, mais surtout ils favorisent la résilience. L’article tente de saisir comment le nouveau système de soin des sans-abris favorise la résilience, c’est-à-dire l’aptitude à surmonter un traumatisme survenu à la suite d’un choc à la fois au niveau individuel, au niveau de l’équipe SBS, mais également au niveau du NHS et de la profession médicale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEntreprendre & InnoverSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207