MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1571631160 · doi:10.3917/nqf.252.0066

Voix alternatives et féministes dans le champ de la santé mentale au Québec

2006· article· fr· W1571631160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie-Laurence Poirel, Berthe Lacharité, Ginette Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles Questions Féministes · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Québec, dans le champ de la santé mentale, l’émergence et la consolidation de discours critiques et de pratiques alternatives aux approches d’intervention dominantes, de plus en plus biomédicales, se sont pour l’essentiel effectuées à l’extérieur du système public de santé et de services sociaux. Ce que l’on appelle ici le Mouvement d’action communautaire autonome a représenté un terreau très fertile pour le déploiement de ces voix et voies alternatives en santé mentale. Cet article s’intéresse plus particulièrement à la contribution de deux catégories d’organismes du Mouvement : les Ressources alternatives en santé mentale et les Centres de femmes, dont l’insertion dans le champ de la santé mentale se situe plus en amont. Par leurs efforts convergents mais aussi par leurs apports différents, ces organismes, qu’ils se disent féministes ou alternatifs, ont significativement contribué au développement d’approches d’intervention sensibles à la complexité de la souffrance psychique dans ses diverses expressions et à l’inscription sociale et sexuée de celles-ci. Représentant des espaces d’appartenance, de parole et d’action, et, souvent, un important levier de transformation personnelle pour les personnes qui les fréquentent, les Ressources alternatives en santé mentale et les Centres de femmes partagent plus largement une culture de transformation sociale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.018
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles Questions FéministesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207