MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7029512525

La fragilisation du lien de confiance au sein de l’intervention sociale en protection de la jeunesse : Peut-on blâmer le droit ?

2021· article· fr· W7029512525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLienContext (archaeology)Social impactSocial protection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le contexte de la protection de la jeunesse, la Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse (LPJ) édicte les pouvoirs et responsabilités des intervenantes sociales œuvrant à la Direction de la protection de la jeunesse (DPJ) et encadre la relation entre celles-ci et les familles. Cette loi octroie aux intervenantes un double mandat, qui implique à la fois celui de l’aide et celui du contrôle et de la surveillance. Selon la littérature relative aux pratiques sociales dans ce domaine, les familles suivies par la DPJ peuvent se sentir observées, traquées, dénuées d’intimité et considèrent difficile de laisser entrer une étrangère dans leur vie privée. Dans ce texte, l’auteure se questionne sur l’incidence des normes législatives en protection de la jeunesse sur l’intervention sociale de la DPJ et soumet l’hypothèse que la LPJ crée un cadre juridique où il est difficile d’établir un lien de confiance entre les familles et les intervenantes sociales puisque le contrôle et la surveillance peuvent prendre le dessus sur l’aide à apporter aux familles. Ce lien de confiance semble non seulement fragilisé par l’ampleur des pouvoirs et responsabilités octroyés aux intervenantes sociales par la loi, mais aussi par la judiciarisation des dossiers à la Chambre de la jeunesse.\nIn the context of youth protection, the Youth Protection Act (YPA) of Québec sets out the powers and responsibilities of the social workers of the Direction of Youth Protection (DYP) and governs the relationship between them and families. This law gives social workers a double mandate, which implies assistance and control and surveillance. According to the literature on social practices in this field, families monitored by the DYP may feel observed, stalked, deprived of privacy, and find it difficult to let a stranger into their private life. Thus, in this text, the author questions the impact of legislative standards on the YPD's social intervention and hypothesizes that the YPA creates a legal framework where it is difficult to establish a bond of trust between families and social workers since control and surveillance take precedence over the assistance to be provided to families. This bond of trust is not only weakened by the extent of the powers and responsibilities granted to social workers by the YPA, but also by the judicialization at the Court of Quebec.

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.078
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.078
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)→Same topicSocial Policies and Family→French-language works237,207→