Work of education in foster homes, in childhood and youth protection : comparison between France and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Notre recherche s’attache à comprendre de quelle manière s’inscrit la cognition des acteurs du travail d’éducation spécialisée dans les variables culturelles et d’interaction sociale, en proposant une méthodologie issue des travaux de la didactique professionnelle et de la théorie des champs conceptuels. Notre travail lie analyse de l’activité des éducateurs (niveau micro), et étude des contextes culturels d’échanges (niveau macro) dans lesquels se déroule celle-ci, dans une démarche compréhensive et qualitative. La comparaison entre France et Québec permet de faire apparaître des éléments particulièrement saillants concernant le travail d’éducation au sein de ces deux contextes. Nous les lierons avec l’évolution libérale transversale aux deux nations, pour penser les échanges possibles, notamment en termes d’outils et de pratiques, mais aussi en termes de formation professionnelle et de ses liens avec la recherche.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".