Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette presentation vous renseignera sur les modeles de rehabilitation psychosociale destines aux personnes souffrant de troubles psychiatriques durables et sur les traitements les plus efficaces, appuyes par des resultats probants. Les modeles Vulnerabilite-Stress-Competence et le modele de retablissement seront discutes. Par la suite, les strategies dont l’efficience a ete verifiee par des etudes seront presentees, en mettant l’accent sur leurs benefices identifies, leurs limites et leur contribution afin d’eviter les rechutes et de favoriser le retablissement des personnes. Il sera entre autre question des strategies suivantes : 1) approches centrees sur l’acquisition d’habiletes (skills training) ; 2) le suivi intensif (Modele ACT) ; 3) les programmes de soutien a l’emploi, (Vocational rehabilitation) ; 4) l’approche integree aupres des personnes souffrant de troubles concomitants ; 5) les approches visant la remediation cognitive ; 6) les approches aupres des familles ; 7) la TCC (therapie cognitive comportementale) visant la reduction des symptomes psychotiques et de la detresse.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".