MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6920632509 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.11918460

Dispositifs de développement et de soutien à l’expertise par les pairs mis en place pour assurer le déploiement de pratiques professionnelles spécialisées. Revue internationale de communication et de socialisation, 3(1), 64-76

2020· article· fr· W6920632509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLibraries and Information Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResearch methodologyContext (archaeology)Comparative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours des dernières décennies, le réseau de la santé et de services sociaux du Québec a connu plusieurs changements importants. Ces transformations entrainent souvent un ajustement des pratiques professionnelles et le besoin de développer de nouvelles compétences. Les Centres de réadaptation en déficience intellectuelle et en troubles du spectre de l’autisme du Québec ont fait un virage vers la spécialisation de leurs services à la suite d’une transformation du réseau. Une recherche a permis de documenter les dispositifs de développement et de soutien à l’expertise « par les pairs » mis en place dans ces centres afin d’assurer le déploiement de pratiques spécialisées. Les résultats illustrent que les regroupements par les pairs se présentent sous des formes et des termes très variés. Cependant, l’analyse de ces dispositifs montre qu’ils correspondent en très grande majorité aux caractéristiques de la communauté de pratique professionnelle.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicLibraries and Information ServicesFrench-language works237,207