Effets du programme « Cercle de sécurité parental » sur la fonction réflexive d’éducateurs en protection de l’enfance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les recherches en protection de l’enfance montrent que les enfants hébergés en centre de réadaptation présentent des caractéristiques qui les distinguent de la population générale sur les plans de la sécurité d’attachement et des problèmes extériorisés. En ce sens, il est proposé que les éducateurs œuvrant auprès de ces jeunes doivent présenter un niveau de réflexivité plus développé afin d’ajuster leurs interventions et de favoriser des expériences d’attachement sécurisantes chez cette population. Cet article propose d’examiner les effets d’un programme préventif basé sur l’attachement, le Cercle de sécurité parental, sur la fonction réflexive parentale (FRP) d’éducateurs (n = 4) en protection de l’enfance au Québec. Les résultats montrent que la FRP de la plupart des éducatrices de l’échantillon a augmenté après le programme et soulignent l’impact du contexte de travail et des situations chargées émotionnellement sur la FRP des participantes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".