L’obligation de signalement aux services de protection de l’enfance : analyse situationnelle de sa mise en oeuvre dans les pratiques de soins primaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: International studies suggest that a lack of forensic knowledge, clinical skills and organizational support may hinder nurses' implementation of the duty to report suspected cases of maltreatment to child welfare services. No studies to date have documented how the duty to report is integrated into primary care nursing practice. Objectives: To describe primary care nurses' perceived role in preventing child maltreatment and to explore the process of implementing mandatory reporting to child welfare services. Methods: A situational analysis was conducted using 14 semi-structured interviews with primary care nurses in Quebec, Canada. These interviews were qualitatively mapped and analyzed using inductive coding. Results: Clinical vigilance is an important dimension of nursing practice, which is influenced by external constraints. The implementation of the duty to report relies on clinical intuition, the exercise of discretionary power and organizational work that can be preventive, targeted or symbolic in scope. The determining factor in the implementation of the duty to report is the exercise of control over the situation and its anticipated consequences. Discussion and conclusion: These findings provide insight into the process of implementing mandatory reporting practices to child welfare services in terms of factors that may influence the exercise of nurses’ discretionary power.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".