Aider les aidants : quel espace pour l’innovation sociale dans le soutien aux proches aidants en région?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous examinons les initiatives et actions locales visant à réduire les inégalités découlant du rôle de proche aidant tant à l’échelle individuelle, collective (de groupes spécifiques, tels que les femmes) que territoriale. Nous présenterons les résultats d’une étude qualitative réalisée au Québec en 2015 auprès de proches aidants d’aînés qui occupent un poste à temps plein dans le marché du travail, ainsi qu’auprès des professionnels leur offrant des services. Plus précisément, nous observerons comment différents acteurs (institutions de la santé, associations, MRC, etc.) essaient de mettre en oeuvre et de conserver une offre de services pour les proches aidants, et comment ces services et ces initiatives peuvent affecter la vie quotidienne des aidants en leur permettant, en premier lieu, de s’identifier comme proches aidants et, plus largement, en influençant leurs trajectoires et expériences de conciliation entre travail, famille et soins.
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 | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".