Le partenariat intersectoriel en tant qu’objet de controverses : positions des acteurs impliqués en réponse aux besoins multiples et complexes des jeunes en difficulté
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les partenariats intersectoriels en réponse aux besoins des jeunes en difficulté et de leur famille réunissent une diversité d’acteurs. Devant la complexité des situations rencontrées, les controverses sont incontournables. Parfois vues comme des obstacles, elles sont aussi porteuses d’innovations sociales. Cet article expose les résultats d’une étude menée auprès de 62 professionnels des secteurs de l’Éducation ou de la Santé et des Services sociaux œuvrant dans 9 régions du Québec. L’analyse révèle que le partenariat constitue un objet de controverses et identifie les sources des controverses identifiées. Sont également présentées quelques solutions implantées par les acteurs pour les résoudre.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".