La collaboration entre l’école et les services sociaux et de santé au profit des jeunes qui vivent des problèmes multiples et complexes : une analyse des controverses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’implication de plusieurs acteurs est nécessaire pour répondre aux besoins multiples de jeunes souvent reconnus, dans le système scolaire québécois, en tant qu’Élèves handicapés ou en difficulté d’adaptation ou d’apprentissage (EHDAA). Or, la collaboration intersectorielle autour de la situation complexe de ces jeunes génère des défis et des tensions entre les partenaires. L’article rend compte de résultats issus d’une étude qualitative portant sur l’analyse des controverses, c’est-à-dire des positions divergentes des acteurs de l’éducation et de la santé et des services sociaux autour des situations de ces jeunes et de leur famille. Soixante-deux professionnels et gestionnaires œuvrant dans neuf régions du Québec (Canada) ont participé à l’étude. L’article expose les différents positionnements des acteurs au regard de situations relatives aux jeunes et aux parents.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".