Le groupe de discussion comme espace de soutien : briser l’isolement chez des survivantes du génocide rwandais
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En plus d’être une technique riche et utile de cueillette de données qualitatives, le dispositif du groupe de discussion peut remplir d’autres fonctions méthodologiques, voire cliniques, comme nous le proposons dans cet article. En soutenant nos propos par des données issues d’un travail ethnographique, dont l’objectif était de tenter de mieux comprendre l’expérience de survie et d’adaptation de femmes rescapées du génocide rwandais, nous suggérons que l’utilisation du groupe de discussion, dans une optique de vérification des résultats auprès des participantes, peut aussi permettre de soutenir le critère de rigueur d’authenticité d’une démarche naturaliste-constructiviste (Morrow, 2005). En outre, nous explorons en quoi le recours au groupe de discussion peut être un espace thérapeutique pour ses participantes, tel qu’il fut le cas dans le contexte de notre ethnographie au Rwanda.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".