Configurations institutionnelles de la protection de l’enfance: regards croisés de l’Afrique, de l’Europe et de l’Amérique du Nord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur l’analyse de trois configurations institutionnelles de la protection de l’enfance : celle en place au Burkina Faso, en Belgique et au Québec. Pour chaque configuration, le texte explore les transformations qui ont marqué le passage de la prise en charge exclusive de l’enfant par la famille vers la présence accrue de l’État et la manière dont la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant de 1989 a influencé ce passage. Il montre, au travers d’une lecture historique, que l’implication de l’État dans la protection des enfants a connu des formes et des modalités variables selon le temps et l’espace. L’approche actuelle en matière de protection de l’enfance au Nord et au Sud, approche largement inspirée de la perspective des droits, représente un défi tant pour les intervenants que pour les familles, car son application dépend à fois des ressources disponibles pour aider les enfants et les familles en difficulté, de la capacité d’action des institutions publiques et de l’efficacité des interventions. \n \nThis article deals with the analysis of three institutional configurations of child protection: those in Burkina Faso, in Belgium, and in Québec. With respect to each configuration, the text explores the changes from situations in which the family had sole control of the child to those where the State played a greater role, and the manner in which the 1989 International Convention on the Rights of the Child has affected such changes. It shows, through a reading of history, that the involvement of the State in child protection has gone through different forms and stages over time and space. The current strategies as regards child protection in the North and in the South—an approach that is largely subject to a legal perspective—represent a challenge both for intervenors and for families, since their application depends on the resources available for helping children and families in difficulty, on the ability of the public institutions to intervene, and on the efficiency of such interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".