MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406482961

\^Etre mineur non accompagn\'e \`a Paris: exploration des facteurs d\'eterminants des besoins en sant\'e physique et mentale par une \'etude qualitative

2025· preprint· en· W4406482961 on OpenAlexaff
Lignon Lignon, Juan Diego Poveda, Stéphanie Wakap Nguengang, Lara Gautier

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPsychologyMental healthGovernment (linguistics)Qualitative researchAction (physics)Scope (computer science)SociologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In France, government protection of unaccompanied minors (UMs) depends upon the recognition of their minority status and often result in a rejection. A significant proportion of UMs therefore find themselves unprotected. This qualitative study explores the contextual and individual factors that shape the physical and mental health needs of unprotected UMs in Paris. Interviews were conducted with UMs (n=12) and those working with them (n=36). A deductive-inductive thematic analysis was carried out. The study contributes to the analysis of the health determinants of unprotected UMs. It shows that institutional barriers limit the scope for action by civil society in the palliative care they receive. The consequence for them is living in conditions of instability and precariousness, with very little prospects for the future, which has a negative impact on their physical and mental health.

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)0.008
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.332
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207