De la pratique traditionnelle à la pratique contemporaine de la psychoéducation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À l’occasion du 50 ième anniversaire de la création de la psychoéducation en tant que discipline universitaire, la trajectoire développementale de l’intervention psycho-éducative est retracée sur la base des événements rattachés aux transformations de sa finalité (rééducation, réadaptation et adaptation) et leurs répercussions sur la diversification de ses champs d’activités professionnelles. La transition entre la pratique traditionnelle (appel vocationnel et pouvoir de l’action) et la pratique contemporaine (discipline professionnelle et pouvoir de la connaissance) est caractérisée en fonction de l’évolution et de la prépondérance de l’accompagnement clinique, de l’exercice du rôle-conseil et de l’évaluation psychoéducative. Des données de recherche et des témoignages appuieront les affirmations énoncées et la nature des défis que confrontent psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices dans le contexte de leur secteur de travail. Compte tenu des variations rattachées aux conditions d’exercice de la psychoéducation, la conclusion soulève des éléments de réflexion quant au devenir de l’intervention psychoéducative.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".