Convergencias y divergencias en cuanto a la parentalidad en Canadá y España: análisis comparado de programas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo busca ilustrar, a partir de un análisis interpretativo y de contenido de diversos documentos oficiales con base en dichos programas, las orientaciones o lógicas subyacentes al funcionamiento y líneas de acción de programas de parentalidad positiva (PPP), dirigidos a familias vulnerables o en situación de riesgo en Quebec (Canadá) y España. En los últimos años, este tipo de programas ha adquirido protagonismo, aunque su desarrollo varía de un contexto a otro. Para el análisis en cuestión se escogieron siete programas (tres canadienses y cuatro españoles) que permiten identificar divergencias y convergencias respecto de las trayectorias con base en su creación y sus parámetros organizativos de intervención. Las conclusiones revelan la importancia dada a la parentalidad, señalando aspectos irresueltos en el seno de los servicios sociales, tales como la población destinatario o el principio de prevención. The article aims to illustrate, based on a content and interpretive analysis of various official documents, the guidance and “underlying logics” governing the operation of positive parenting programmes (Triple P) aimed at families that are vulnerable or in a situation of risk in Quebec (Canada) and Spain. In recent years, this type of program has taken on an important role, although its development varies from one context to another. For the analysis, seven programs were chosen (three Canadian and four Spanish) that allow identifying divergences and convergences both with respect to the trajectories at the base of their creation and their organizational parameters of intervention. The conclusions reveal the importance given to parenting, pointing out aspects still under debate within social services such as the target population or the principle of prevention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".