MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417200181 · doi:10.62920/wnsvhe40

Émergence et mise en œuvre de l’approche de l’impact collectif pour l’inclusion sociale de personnes aînées au Québec: défis et facteurs facilitants

2025· article· W4417200181 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Joseph, Émilie Raymond

Bibliographic record

VenueFacteurs humains : · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppropriationScope (computer science)Inclusion (mineral)Citizen journalismDiversity (politics)Collective actionIndigenous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adoption of the collective impact approach in Quebec is relatively recent, and researchers are beginning to explore its specificities within the Quebec community sector. This article presents the findings of a case study that examines how community actors experienced collective impact through a regional initiative aimed at promoting the social inclusion of seniors. Data for the study were collected from 43 participants involved in the Initiative pour l’inclusion sociale de personnes aînées, un enjeu collectif through participatory observation, individual interviews, and focus groups. The findings highlight the obstacles and factors that facilitated the appropriation and implementation of the collective impact approach, thereby contributing to the scientific literature on the subject. Notably, the results revealed that collective impact can be perceived by community actors as “a top-down imposed model”. Its technical complexity and lack of popularization in Quebec were among the main factors that made its adoption difficult. The implementation of the approach within the Initiative faced several obstacles, such as the scope and diversity of the territory covered, the number and geographical distribution of the actors involved, as well as the health measures related to COVID-19.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.347 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFacteurs humains :Same topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207