Créer des ponts par la concertation intersectorielle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans un contexte où les défis éducatifs et sociaux exigent une approche concertée, les tables de concertation se révèlent essentielles pour briser le travail en silo. En réunissant les acteurs scolaires, communautaires, municipaux et de la santé autour d’enjeux communs, elles favorisent une vision globale des besoins des élèves et de leur famille. Les agents de développement et les organisateurs communautaires y jouent un rôle central en facilitant la collaboration et en assurant la cohérence des services. Sur le territoire d’un centre de services scolaire, ces concertations ont mené à des initiatives concrètes, comme des soirées communautaires et un Comité langage, renforçant l’accessibilité aux ressources et le soutien aux familles. Toutefois, des défis demeurent, notamment concernant la mobilisation des partenaires et la pérennité des projets. En adoptant des stratégies adaptées, les tables de concertation demeurent un levier puissant pour renforcer la solidarité et répondre efficacement aux besoins du territoire.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".