Le plan d’intervention en contexte d’intervention comportementale intensive (ICI) : perception des pratiques et des défis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La mise en oeuvre de l’intervention comportementale intensive (ICI) nécessite une planification des objectifs et des moyens pour chaque enfant. Ce processus d’individualisation est essentiel à une intervention de qualité. Selon la loi, les établissements doivent rendre compte de la planification des interventions pour chacune des personnes à qui ils offrent des services par le biais du plan d’intervention. Cette étude vise à identifier les pratiques et les défis associés à l’élaboration de ces plans, en contexte d’ICI, du point de vue de membres de l’équipe d’intervention (21 intervenantes, 6 superviseures et 4 professionnelles). L’analyse des entretiens semi-structurés permet de préciser les pratiques et les défis perçus, notamment ceux associés aux caractéristiques de l’ICI (p. ex., son intensité), à la participation des parents dans le processus, au travail interdisciplinaire, à l’individualisation, à l’accès aux données probantes venant appuyer la planification de l’intervention et aux normes de l’établissement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".