Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article discute de certains enjeux liés à la modernisation des dispositifs de protection de l’enfance à la lumière de récents rapports publics diffusés en France et au Québec. Après avoir rappelé quelques-unes des grandes trajectoires et caractéristiques institutionnelles des deux systèmes, il propose d’interroger les conditions d’accès et de participation effective des enfants à la mesure de protection qui les concerne. Il propose ensuite de réfléchir à la systématisation de parcours d’accompagnement allant au-delà de la mesure de protection, dans le but d’enrayer le phénomène des « sorties sèches » des jeunes majeurs et des mineurs sortants. Enfin, il discute de la nécessité de repenser et d’adapter les conditions et les institutions de la protection de l’enfance, afin de mieux répondre aux besoins de certains groupes de mineurs et jeunes majeurs particulièrement vulnérables. Aussi, l’article met en exergue trois formes de convergences issues desdits rapports et dont les recommandations s’inscrivent, de manière globale, dans le virage participatif et le développement des capacités de résilience de l’enfance protégée.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".