MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975035566 · doi:10.1684/ipe.2012.0938

Les outils d'évaluation du risque de violence : avantages et limites

2012· article· fr· W1975035566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frédéric Millaud, Jean-Luc Dubreucq

Bibliographic record

VenueL information psychiatrique · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsInstitut national de psychiatrie légale Philippe-Pinel
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’article expose les aspects theoriques et historiques de l’evaluation du risque de violence a l’aide d’outils standardises. Il discute ensuite des principaux outils actuariels et de jugement clinique et de l’utilisation qui en est faite au Canada et a l’institut Pinel de Montreal en insistant sur leur integration a une evaluation clinique approfondie et rigoureuse. Les principaux avantages et inconvenients de ces outils sont enfin presentes.

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)0.215
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.391
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2150.391
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0130.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.019
Scholarly communication0.0200.012
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.299 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL information psychiatriqueSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207