Les barrières et facilitateurs à l’actualisation des valeurs professionnelles : perceptions d’ergothérapeutes du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maints ergotherapeutes aspirent a exercer une profession qui incarne les valeurs qu’ils considerent estimables et importantes. En pratique, ils rencontrent cependant des barrieres limitant le respect de celles-ci. Il s’ensuit que certains vivent de la detresse ethique. Une recherche a ete menee pour recueillir les perceptions d’ergotherapeutes francophones du Quebec des barrieres et facilitateurs a l’actualisation de leurs valeurs. A cette fin, un devis phenomenologique a ete choisi et vingt-six ergotherapeutes ont ete rencontres en entrevue. Ceux-ci rapportent des obstacles et facilitateurs de nature micro, meso et macro-environnementale a l’actualisation de leurs valeurs. Quant a la detresse ethique, certains rapportent en avoir vecu, tandis que d’autres expriment leur preference pour un terme moins charge emotionnellement. Les resultats de la recherche sont, en general, conformes a ceux que rapportent les ecrits. Ils temoignent d’une realite preoccupante, mais encore peu documentee en ergotherapie.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".