MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3018248857 · doi:10.7202/1068551ar

INITIATIVE DE CONCERTATION Locale afin de prévenir les homicides intrafamiliaux

2020· article· fr· W3018248857 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christine Drouin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social work review · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évolution des connaissances au sujet des homicides intrafamiliaux a permis au cours dernières années de mieux cibler les situations à risque et ainsi optimiser leur prévention. Pour les divers acteurs oeuvrant auprès des personnes vivant dans une situation où un risque de létalité est présent, il apparaît que la collaboration entre les divers partenaires des milieux concernés est une condition importante pour assurer une meilleure prévention des homicides intrafamiliaux, C’est dans cette optique que les partenaires de la Montérégie-Ouest, une région du Québec, se sont dotés d’un nouveau mécanisme de collaboration : l’Entente P.H.A.R.E. (Prévention des Homicides intrafamiliaux par des Actions Rapides et Engagées). Cet article fait état du fonctionnement de cette entente de collaboration et dresse un bilan de celle-ci à partir du discours d’intervenants-clés au coeur de cette initiative. Les résultats montrent une appréciation positive du fonctionnement, de l’utilisation et des répercussions sur les pratiques de l’Entente P.H.A.R.E, ainsi que sur le partenariat dans cette région du Québec. Faire appel aux partenaires de l’Entente s’avère une aide précieuse lors de la gestion des situations à haut risque d’homicide et lors des situations de danger imminent.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social work reviewSame topicHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseFrench-language works237,207