Une collaboration recherche-pratique pour améliorer l’organisation des services aux enfants ayant un retard de développement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provincial survey on child development and challenges of service accessibility led researchers and stakeholders at an integrated health and social services centre to work together to develop and implement a new trajectory for organizing services provided to children with developmental delays (OSER). This article describes the collaborative research process that led to the implementation and evaluation of this trajectory. The OSER trajectory was developed with stakeholders through a literature review and an ongoing knowledge restitution exercise. Six dimensions were identified for the implementation of the trajectory: monitoring and screening; diagnostic assessment; interventions; support and involvement of parents; interprofessional and intersectoral expertise and collaboration; and administrative and organizational structure. Professionals and clinical managers shared their perceptions of the elements that promote or hinder the OSER trajectory. The triangulation of data collection sources and methods enabled an analysis of the implementation of practices and led to concrete recommendations for the organization of services, in particular the implementation of a childhood diagnostic clinic. This research could serve as a model for other initiatives in health and social services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".