Pour un accompagnement des adoptants à la hauteur des enjeux psychiques : analyse comparée en France et au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
De quelle façon le type de parcours choisi par les couples en démarche d'adoption peut faire varier de façon spécifique leur imaginaire, c'est-à-dire leurs représentations fantasmatiques de l'enfant adopté à venir ? C’est toute la question soulevée par l’auteur, impliquée à la fois dans des travaux universitaires et dans la mission Adoption de Médecins du Monde. Cet article prend appui sur des éléments de comparaison entre la France et le Québec, dont les systèmes d'accompagnement et de préparation à la parentalité adoptive à l'étranger, tant sur les aspects juridique que psychologique, diffèrent. Il démontre notamment comment ce travail d'élaboration psychique et d'accès à l'imaginaire parental s'avère parfois difficile mais essentiel pour prévenir les risques de l'adoption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".