Ethical implications of case management services organization: a comparison France–Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract:Introduction: Professional ethics is an important aspect of case managers’ under constructionprofessional identity. We tried, from a comparison France-Québec, to understand case managers’main values and their link with case management services organizations.Methods: We realized a qualitative study based on Focus Groups (3 in Quebec, 4 in France). Thequestioning route included questions on case managers attitudes concerning respect for autonomy,cost control and information sharing, and general values of case management.Results: All case managers asserted the importance of respecting clients’ choices even in at risksituations, and despite clients’ frequent cognitive troubles. However, in practice, case managers tryto convince clients to accept services in order to protect them, resting mainly on family andprofessional partners in Quebec, whereas French case managers engage themselves in a strongpersonal relationship to understand the clients ‘values and negotiate individualized services.Quebec case managers were attached to the idea of defending public interest and respectingprocedures, whereas French case managers considered administrative work as time taken toserve the system instead of the clients.Conclusion: Most of these results can be explained by the differences between the two systemsin cases selection and cost control process.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".