Sensibiliser à la diversité : la formation aux enjeux interculturels dans les programmes universitaires en relation d’aide au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude décrit et compare l’offre de cours sur les enjeux interculturels des programmes universitaires québécois pour quatre disciplines de la relation d’aide (ergothérapie, travail social, psychologie et pratique sage-femme). L’étude recense la présence de tels cours dans chaque discipline, leur caractère obligatoire ou optionnel, leurs caractéristiques pédagogiques et leurs contenus. Les thèmes décrivant ces contenus, identifiés par une analyse inductive, ont été regroupés selon les composantes de la compétence culturelle : conscience culturelle de soi, connaissances et habiletés culturelles (Sue et al., 1992). Les différentes disciplines abordent le plus souvent les connaissances culturelles, sauf en pratique sage-femme qui considère davantage les habiletés. Presque le quart des programmes n’offrent aucun cours interculturel. Bien qu’une formule expérientielle (p. ex., stage) favorise l’acquisition de la compétence culturelle, les cours offerts sont surtout magistraux. La discussion souligne les avantages et les inconvénients de rendre ces cours interculturels obligatoires, notamment par rapport à la motivation des étudiants, et propose des actions concrètes facilitant les changements institutionnels nécessaires.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".