La protection des enfants: enjeux de l'intervention en contexte interculturel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article presente les differentes experiences de reussite, ainsi que les defis et enjeux rencontres par cinq intervenants en protection de la jeunesse oeuvrant aupres de familles immigrantes ou issues de minorites ethniques au Quebec. L’analyse qualitative demontre que les facteurs favorisant ou posant obstacles a l’etablissement d’une alliance parents-intervenants relevent des familles, des intervenants eux-memes et de l’institution. Les prejuges, la rigidite, les sentiments de menace, de la part de l’intervenant et de la famille, ainsi que l’absence de soutien institutionnel contribuent a l’installation d’une spirale de rejet, de resistance et de luttes de pouvoirs, mettant davantage en peril le developpement de l’enfant. Par contre, l’ouverture, la capacite de decentration et de remise en question, l’initiative dans la recherche des outils necessaires par la famille et l’intervenant, ainsi que la reconnaissance par l’institution des besoins et des competences des intervenants et de la famille, s’averent tous des facteurs essentiels a l’etablissement d’une alliance pour le meilleur interet de l’enfant.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".