La participation d'adolescent-e-s dans les projets de promotion de la santé ::guide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La participation d’adolescent-e-s dans les projets de promotion de la santé prend une importance croissante, en lien avec l’objectif de créer des es- paces de vie favorables à la santé. L’exigence de faire participer les adolescent-e-s à la promotion de la santé découle également de la Charte d’Ottawa. Le présent guide décrit ce que l’on entend précisément par participation et comment la participation d’adolescent-e-s dans la conception, la planification, la mise en œuvre et l’évaluation de projets de promotion de la santé peut se faire efficacement. À cet égard, la règle de base suivante s’applique: la participation est possible avec toutes les jeunes personnes, pour autant que les processus soient adaptés aux besoins et à l’âge, et méthodologiquement bien conçus. Le présent guide offre un soutien pratique à cet effet pour les responsables PAC, les services spécialisés et les directions de projet dans le domaine de la promotion de la santé.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.020 |
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".