L’apport du savoir expérientiel des personnes usagères des services sociaux au sein de la formation en travail social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte a pour objectif de démontrer la pertinence du savoir expérientiel des usagers dans le cadre de la formation académique des futurs travailleurs sociaux en regard de la mise en œuvre de l’alliance avec la personne accompagnée. L’intégration des usagers dans la formation permet de réduire la distance sociale tout en réfléchissant aux inégalités structurelles. Ce texte s’appuie sur le modèle suédois du « gap mending » en travail social de l’université de Lund. Les auteurs présentent plus particulièrement les aspects clés de la dimension relationnelle ciblés par des usagers lors d’une recherche norvégienne inspirée par l’approche anti-oppressive, tout en la reliant à la recension des écrits sur l’apport du savoir expérientiel dans le cadre de travaux menés à l’école de travail social de l’université de Sherbrooke et visant la participation des usagers dans la formation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".