Qualité des services de soutien et confiance institutionnelle : expériences des victimes lesboqueers de violence entre partenaires intimes au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La violence entre partenaires intimes (VPI) a fait l’objet de plusieurs recherches, toutefois les expériences des victimes lesboqueers restent peu documentées, notamment au sein des services de soutien québécois. Cet article examine la perception de la qualité de ces services à partir d’une analyse qualitative des témoignages de 24 participant·es. Quatre composantes d’une intervention de qualité sont identifiées : un accueil initial empathique, un soutien émotionnel et psychologique, un climat de confiance et de sécurité, ainsi qu’une intervention adaptée aux réalités lesboqueers. La discussion met en lumière les tensions entre les logiques institutionnelles et les besoins des victimes, en soulignant l’importance de la compétence culturelle et de l’accompagnement psychosocial. Ces enjeux sont analysés à travers le cadre de la confiance institutionnelle (Kennedy et al., 2024) afin de comprendre comment la perception de la bienveillance, de l’équité et de la compétence influence le recours aux services. En conclusion, l’article interroge l’importance accordée au système judiciaire comme principal vecteur de justice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".