MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080522780 · doi:10.7202/1028013ar

Empathie, biais de mentalisation, comportements pro-sociaux et troubles de comportement chez les enfants d’âge scolaire

2015· article· fr· W2080522780 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Émilie Girard, Miguel M. Terradas, Célia Matte‐Gagné

Bibliographic record

VenueEnfance en difficulté · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des LaurentidesUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présente étude propose d’examiner les liens entre la capacité d’empathie, les comportements pro-sociaux, les biais de mentalisation et les troubles de comportement (TC) chez les garçons âgés de 7 à 12 ans. Pour ce faire, 51 garçons présentant divers niveaux de TC et leurs parents ont participé à la recherche. Les enfants ont rempli des questionnaires autoadministrés concernant l’empathie et les biais de mentalisation. Pour leur part, les parents ont rempli des questionnaires relatifs à l’empathie, aux comportements pro-sociaux et aux TC manifestés par leurs enfants. Les résultats démontrent que les biais de mentalisation négatifs et les comportements pro-sociaux prédisent 24,5 % de la variance des TC. La capacité d’empathie quant à elle serait une variable médiatrice entre les comportements pro-sociaux et la présence des TC. Les résultats de la recherche permettront d’ajuster les programmes de prévention des TC et les interventions offertes aux enfants d’âge scolaire présentant ces troubles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations10
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnfance en difficultéSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207