Le développement d’une collaboration inter organisationelle durable en promotion de la santé : une analyse processuelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé : En raison de l’éventail, de la diversité et de la complexité des déterminants de la santé, les bénéfices recherchés par les efforts de promotion ne peuvent généralement être générés sans la collaboration de plusieurs organisations. Toutefois, le développement d’une collaboration durable n’est pas facile. Cet article est le fruit d’une recherche empirique portant sur une collaboration durable en promotion de la santé. Les données ont été recueillies dans le cadre d’une étude longitudinale qui examine les principaux évènements qui ont marqué la collaboration au cours d’une période de vingt ans. L’analyse montre que la collaboration inter organisationnelle est un phénomène complexe digne de sa réputation, et elle invite les chercheurs comme les praticiens à distinguer les enjeux de la collaboration autour de projets spécifiques et ceux liés à ce que nous appelons la collaboration durable.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".