Créer des contextes de coopération pour sortir des culs-de-sac thérapeutiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à : 1) décrire la gestion des problèmes de santé mentale selon les deux modèles opposés ici et qui se différencient lors des tensions, le modèle de la coopération et le modèle traditionnel médical ; 2) illustrer à l’aide d’exemples cliniques ces différences essentielles ; et 3) proposer quelques réflexions sur les obstacles à la coopération en raison des attitudes protectionnistes du modèle traditionnel médical qui s’accentuent lors des crises. S’en tenir aux traitements des pathologies en ignorant la nature des contextes relationnels, comme le veut le modèle traditionnel médical, risque de conduire les acteurs dans des culs-de-sac thérapeutiques dont le plus fréquent est celui la psychiatrisation. L’auteure propose un modèle d’intervention qu’elle intitule les 4Rs pour installer un contexte de coopération afin de sortir des culs-de-sac thérapeutiques.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".