Les discours et les pratiques de participation sociale d'aînés handicapés : exploration critique d'un carrefour peu fréquenté
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This doctoral thesis explores the theme of social participation among seniors aging with disabilities. The research had three objectives: first, understanding how people aging with disabilities see their participation in society; second, exploring their practices of social participation, and; third, comparing the notions and experiences of seniors aging with disabilities with the vision of participation that is adopted by the government of Quebec in the field of aging. A dual research methodology was developed. A case study of a group of seniors engaged in a photonovel project about aging with disabilities allowed the study of how they perceived and lived their participation in society. And a critical content analysis permitted a better understanding of how the concept of social participation is used in Quebec aging policy. The relationship between the results of these two sets of data, one anchored in the experience of a group of seniors, and the other in the discourse of a contemporary political agenda, addresses a gap in the scientific literature by problematizing the stereotypical understanding of the connection between social participation and disability. The conclusions of the thesis nourish reflections and suggest new intervention approaches in social work that are more sensitive to the diversity of aging experiences.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".