MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385258953 · doi:10.25071/1920-7336.41040

L’Adaptation des services à la Clinique santé ses réfugiés de Québec: Une réponse aux impacts de la pandémie de COVID-19 chez les personnes réfugiées

2023· article· fr· W4385258953 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lucienne Martins Borges, Mariá Boeira Lodetti, Valérie Hamel-Genest, Marie-Élisa Fortin, Gabrielle Robert, Stéphanie Arsenault, Lucille Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueRefuge Canada s Journal on Refuge · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineArtVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article a pour but de documenter l’adaptation des services de la Clinique santé des réfugiés de Québec pendant les première et deuxième vagues de la pandémie de COVID-19. En s’appuyant sur un devis de recherche qualitative, des entrevues semi-structurées ont été réalisées auprès des intervenantes et intervenants ayant travaillé à cette clinique. Les résultats ont été systématisés selon les thématiques suivantes : adaptation des services, outil de dépistage, déroulement des interventions, besoins des personnes réfugiées durant la pandémie et retombées de l’adaptation des services. La reconnaissance que les personnes réfugiées constituent une population vulnérable a été essentielle pour empêcher une rupture de l’offre de services, jouant ainsi un rôle de prévention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRefuge Canada s Journal on RefugeSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207