L’autonomie, une liberté pour les uns, un combat pour les autres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Réflexion partagée entre usagers et professionnels des secteurs sanitaire et social, la démarche réflexive des participants est double. Ceux-ci se sont engagés, en premier, dans une approche conceptuelle de la notion d’autonomie. L’objectif est d’acquérir une compréhension partagée de ce concept pour mieux considérer la multiplicité singulière des vécus. En second, le partage de vécus quotidiens, relevant de témoignages d’usagers, est venu illustrer les difficultés que ceux-ci rencontraient au quotidien. Ce qui ne pose pas problème à chacun peut devenir une véritable épreuve pour celui qui est en situation de handicap. Cet article met en lumière ce que, parfois, les professionnels finissent par oublier, accaparés par les contraintes qui sont les leurs. Il révèle également ce que nombre d’usagers n’osent exprimer. Pour autant, il s’agit de rester attentif à celui qui est différent. Cet engagement doit permettre le respect d’un droit commun.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".