MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078793914 · doi:10.7202/038863ar

Éditorial

2010· article· fr· W2078793914 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Gravier

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatrie et violence · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évolution des connaissances et des compétences en matière d’évaluation et de gestion du risque de violence a permis une indiscutable avancée. Néanmoins les instruments utilisés restent encore source de controverses et prêtent le flanc à de nombreuses critiques. Dans ce contexte le climat sécuritaire actuel fait peser une lourde pression sur les équipes soignantes qui ont aussi à faire face à la violence des patients. Une réflexion sur les possibilités et les limites autant du soin que de la privation de liberté permet, peut-être d’envisager ce qu’est un risque acceptable.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.052

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.391 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatrie et violenceSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207