Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats de la validation québécoise du Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona et Russel, 1989). L'Échelle de provisions sociales a été administrée à 790 personnes au cours de deux études. La première comporte 387 étudiants universitaires de premier cycle et la seconde, 266 personnes de la population générale, 79 bénéficiaires d'aide sociale et 58 personnes ayant reçu un diagnostic relatif à la psychose. Les résultats montrent que l'échelle présente une bonne cohérence interne et une stabilité temporelie satisfaisante, assurant ainsi la fidélité de l'instrument. Les analyses factorielles n'ont pas reproduit exactement le même profil que l'instrument original, toutefois les corrélations modérées entre les différentes provisions sociales soutiennent la validité du construit multidimensionnel du support social. De plus, des analyses de la variance et l'analyse discriminante permettent de constater que les sous-échelles ont un pouvoir discriminant élevé, elles permettent de distinguer la population générale, les bénéficiaires d'aide sociale et les personnes psychotiques. Enfin, les normes sont présentées pour la population générale.
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 | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".