Perceptions d’un outil considérant la famille dans la planification des services à l’enfant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le rationnel et la nécessité d’impliquer la famille dans les interventions menées auprès de l’enfant présentant un trouble du spectre de l’autisme (TSA) ont été articulés de bien des façons dans les écrits (Azeem, Imran et Khawaja, 2016). L’importance d’outiller les intervenants à considérer la famille dans la mise en place des services s’avère un choix judicieux. Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude pilote menée auprès de neuf intervenants et de sept parents afin de documenter leur perception face à l’utilisation de l’Outil de collecte d’informations relatives à la famille (OCIRF). Pour ce faire, un devis mixte, incluant des évaluations qualitatives et quantitatives provenant de diverses sources, a été utilisé. Les résultats démontrent notamment que les parents sont globalement significativement plus satisfaits de l’utilisation de l’outil que ne le sont les intervenants.
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 | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".