Les facteurs d’aide : Pour une meilleure compréhension des éléments-clés de l’intervention en contexte de nature et d’aventure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les programmes d’intervention en contexte de nature et d’aventure (INA) font l’objet d’études depuis plus d’une cinquantaine d’années. Malgré la reconnaissance des effets qui leur sont attribués, peu de travaux portent sur les processus s’opérant dans ces interventions. L’objectif de cet article est d’identifier ces processus et de mieux comprendre leur influence sur l’expérience de groupe. Pour ce faire, le modèle des facteurs d’aide (FA) a été retenu. Des entrevues semi-dirigées ont été réalisées auprès de 23 sujets âgés de 17 à 21 ans ayant participé à une expédition de 18 jours. Les éléments-clés de l’INA sont les suivants : la multitude de défis, la déstabilisation, la relation entre les enseignants et les participants et le milieu naturel. Ensuite, leur relation avec les FA est mise en relief. Il est question de : l’altruisme, les comportements d’imitation, la cohésion, la connaissance de soi, le partage d’information, l’universalité et les techniques de socialisation. Les apprentissages interpersonnels, la catharsis, l’espoir, les facteurs existentiels et la récapitulation corrective de la famille sont absents. Ces résultats mettent en lumière l’interaction entre les éléments-clés de l’INA et les FA, et la pertinence de s’y intéresser en travail social de groupe.A number of studies have addressed outdoor and adventure programs over the past fifty years. Despite empirical evidence that demonstrates the personal benefits of these programs, research investigating the key features responsible for these effects is scarce. The purpose of this article is to identify them and understand their influence. In order to achieve this goal, the data were examined from the perspective of helping factors (HFs). Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 23 subjects aged between 17 and 21 who had participated in an 18 day expedition. The results show that participation in the program promoted key features: multiple challenges, the experience of destabilization, the relationship between the facilitators and group members and finally, the experience of being in wilderness. Then, relationships between key features and HFs are highlighted. Many of them are found: altruism, imitative behavior, cohesiveness, self-understanding, imparting information, development of socializing techniques, and universality. Interpersonal learning, catharsis, hope, existential factors, and corrective recapitulation of the primary family group are absent. These results give a better understanding of how key features interact with HFs in nature and adventure settings and its relevance in social work with groups.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".