APPLICATION D’UN PROGRAMME D’INTERVENTION SOCIO-JUDICIAIRE EN CONFLITS SÉVÈRES DE SÉPARATION : QU’EN PENSENT LES PROFESSIONNELS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude qualitative vise à documenter l’expérience de professionnels qui appliquent un programme pour les parents vivant des conflits sévères de séparation. L’objectif du programme est de concerter l’intervention des directeurs de la protection de la jeunesse et le processus judiciaire, afin d’amener les parents à établir une coparentalité fonctionnelle permettant d’assurer la sécurité et le développement de leur enfant. Trente professionnels ont participé à des entrevues individuelles (i.e., avocats, juges, intervenants en coparentalité et intervenants en protection de la jeunesse). L’analyse permet de décrire : 1) les effets perçus du programme sur les familles et les services et 2) les enjeux rencontrés par les professionnels dans l’application du programme.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".