Revisiter la notion de traitement à partir de récits de personnes usagères, d’intervenants et de responsables de ressources alternatives en santé mentale : la question de la subjectivité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine l’importance de la subjectivité comme dimension du sujet humain dans le champ de la psychiatrie et les impasses qui la marquent. La question de la subjectivité apparaît assez marginale dans les débats et les travaux contemporains en psychiatrie et en santé mentale, particulièrement en Amérique du Nord. Les auteures s’interrogent sur la tendance à mettre à l’écart cette question, et sur les espaces où la subjectivité est prise en compte dans la pratique du traitement en santé mentale. Les résultats d’une recherche qualitative auprès des personnes usagères, des intervenants et des responsables d’organismes non institutionnels identifiés comme des ressources alternatives de traitement, démontrent que les voix se rejoignent dans la compréhension du traitement, ce qui accroît l’intérêt et la portée des résultats de cette étude.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".