MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999962350 · doi:10.7202/1066578ar

Expériences rapportées par des psychologues scolaires québécois au primaire et au secondaire sur leurs rôles pour lutter contre l’intimidation à caractère homophobe

2019· article· fr· W2999962350 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
René‐Marc Lavigne

Bibliographic record

VenueEnfance en difficulté · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntimidationSociologyHumanitiesArtPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’intimidation à caractère homophobe (ICH), une forme d’intimidation qui vise, entre autres, les élèves de minorités sexuelles et de genre, entraine des conséquences psychosociales et scolaires chez les élèves. Les psychologues scolaires, experts en santé mentale, peuvent intervenir lors de situations d’intimidation. Alors que plusieurs études ont évalué les actes homophobes et leurs effets sur les élèves, peu se sont intéressées aux rôles des psychologues scolaires relativement à l’ICH. À l’aide d’entretiens individuels structurés, la présente étude explore les expériences de 30 psychologues scolaires (15 hommes, 15 femmes) quant à leurs rôles pour lutter contre l’ICH. Les résultats montrent que la consultation est centrale dans les stratégies conçues par des psychologues pour contrer ce problème. Par exemple, plusieurs participants disent manquer d’expérience professionnelle et de formation concernant l’ICH puisque ce thème est peu enseigné pendant leur formation universitaire. Ils recommandent à leurs collègues psychologues scolaires de s’impliquer davantage en intervention et en sensibilisation en ce qui concerne l’ICH.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnfance en difficultéSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207