MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403606505 · doi:10.7202/1113800ar

La fin du placement et la place accordée aux expériences traumatiques en Centre jeunesse

2023· article· fr· W4403606505 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Kargakos, Thomas Saïas

Bibliographic record

VenueTravail social. · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les Centres jeunesse (CJ) desservent une population présentant des traumas multiples. Les difficultés qui découlent de ces traumas compromettent significativement le développement des enfants. Les personnes qui quittent les CJ à l’atteinte de la majorité présentent des risques additionnels concernant leur fonctionnement à l’âge adulte. Pour répondre aux besoins complexes et variés de cette population, des services sensibles et adaptés à leurs expériences traumatiques sont essentiels. Cette étude visait à mieux comprendre la fin de placement et à examiner la place accordée aux expériences traumatiques dans l’offre de services des CJ. Quinze adultes âgés de 18 à 26 ans ayant vécu un placement jusqu’à la majorité ont participé à cette étude. Les résultats montrent que la fin du placement est vécue comme difficile, abrupte et que les jeunes sont confrontés à un sentiment de solitude. Les services offerts visent principalement des besoins de base (trouver un emploi) et ne prennent pas en considération les besoins psychologiques. Cette étude souligne l’importance de mieux prendre en compte les expériences des jeunes et d’adapter les services à leur vécu.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTravail social.Same topicChild Welfare and AdoptionFrench-language works237,207