Les troubles obsessionnels-compulsifs : appartiennent-ils aux troubles anxieux ou à une autre famille de troubles mentaux ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article passe en revue les quatre conceptions du trouble obsessionnel-compulsif (TOC) : la première conception présuppose que le TOC est un trouble du mouvement, la deuxième soutient que cette maladie fait partie du spectre TOC incluant, à la fois, les troubles impulsifs et compulsifs, la troisième fait référence à la classification actuelle (DSM-IV-TR) qui répartit le TOC dans la famille des troubles anxieux et la dernière conception suggère qu’il est, en fait, un trouble du raisonnement qui pourrait s’inscrire sur un continuum avec, par exemple, le trouble délirant. Même s’il existe des arguments en faveur des quatre conceptions, le TOC semble se différencier des troubles du mouvement, des troubles impulsifs et des troubles anxieux. En effet, il serait plus juste et raisonnable de concevoir le TOC comme un trouble du raisonnement qui provoque de l’anxiété associée aux croyances obsessionnelles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".