Psychiatrie et Facebook : illustration de l'utilisation des sites sociaux au lendemain d'un trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'Internet influence et modifie de nombreux aspects de la vie quotidienne. Il en est de meme pour ce qui est de la sante physique et mentale. La popularite croissante de sites tels que Facebook fait que les sites sociaux deviennent des plates-formes que les patients ainsi que les professionnels de sante mentale utilisent. Une illustration de ce phenomene est presentee en prenant l'exemple du trauma et en s'interrogeant sur les pratiques d'aujourd'hui et de demain : qu'en est-il de la qualite de l'information sur le trouble de stress post-traumatique disponible sur l'Internet et particulierement sur les sites sociaux ? Que penser de la proliferation des groupes de discussions sur les troubles de sante mentaux ? Qu'est-ce que le professionnel de sante mentale doit prendre en compte dans son utilisation des sites sociaux ? Comment ces sites Internet peuvent etre utilises a la suite d'une catastrophe majeure et enfin, est-ce que la pratique de la psychiatrie risque d'evoluer avec ce medium ?
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".