Déficit en théorie de l'esprit dans la schizophrénie: Relecture clinique et revue des arguments expérimentaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This article synthesizes and discusses the clinical and experimental arguments for applying the concept of a theory-of-mind deficit to schizophrenia. METHOD: The term "theory of mind" is defined. A review of literature on the hypothesis of a theory-of-mind deficit in schizophrenia is then presented. Clinical and experimental arguments are discussed. The article concludes with a summary of the issue. RESULTS: The hypothesis of a theory-of-mind deficit in schizophrenia is convincing, particularly considering the most recent experimental evidence. This cognitive deficit explains the presence of schizophrenia symptoms such as delusions of influence and reference, problems in social adaptation, and signs of disorganized communication. Consideration is given to the roles played by situational ambiguity, the individual's intellectual level, and type of treatment. CONCLUSION: The hypothesis of a theory-of-mind deficit has only recently been applied in schizophrenia research; it may have a strong impact on clinical practice. If its role in the onset of symptoms is to be better understood, explanatory models and experimental paradigms must be further refined.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".