Proches aidantes immigrantes vivant au Canada : accompagner malgré la distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article découle d’une étude qualitative menée au Canada auprès de 100 proches aidantes francophones, dont dix qui ont immigré et qui accompagnent leurs familles habitant dans le pays d’origine. Réalisée à partir d’entretiens semi-dirigés, cette recherche permet de comprendre la complexité que revêt le fait d’être proche aidante dans un contexte transnational. Il en ressort que vivre au loin tout en continuant à soutenir ses proches comporte des défis particuliers. Le care , comme choix théorique, contribue à saisir des formes d’oppression qui souvent taisent la parole et l’expérience de certains groupes marginalisés. Trois thèmes centraux décrivent leur expérience de soutien et d’accompagnement et permettent d’en apprécier la complexité, notamment les défis financiers, la gestion à distance et le sentiment de culpabilité qui les habite. Enfin, cette étude met en lumière le besoin de recherche portant sur la proche aidance à distance en contexte francophone minoritaire au Canada.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".