La recherche du consentement : enjeux et méthode dans une enquête qualitative auprès de personnes en fragilité psychique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article est tiré d’une enquête qualitative auprès de personnes en fragilité psychique vieillissantes, vivant dans une petite ville française et membres d’un Groupe d’Entraide Mutuelle (GEM). L’objectif de cette recherche était d’analyser leurs pratiques spatiales quotidiennes afin 1) d’identifier les facteurs contraignant et/ou favorisant leur inclusion dans la ville et 2) d’étudier en quoi le GEM participait à la construction des géographies quotidiennes et à l’inclusion dans la ville de ces personnes. La méthodologie a la particularité d’avoir été soumise aux exigences du comité d’éthique d’une université canadienne. L’article relate cette expérience en examinant l’influence de ces exigences éthiques sur la réalisation de l’enquête et l’obtention du consentement des participants.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".