MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105684913 · doi:10.7202/017201ar

Le clinicien et la question de la « dangerosité » : à la croisée du social et de l’individuel

2005· article· en· W2105684913 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yann Bogopolsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychicSocial realitySocial functionSet (abstract data type)HumanitiesFunction (biology)Order (exchange)PsychoanalysisSociologyPsychologyPhilosophyEpistemologyMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of “dangerosity” as applied to a single individual excludes other forms of social violence. I) A “mythical” function which names what appears threatening. II) An “instrumental” function which identifies the so-called Social Disease, legitimizes the violence of incarceration, and pursues the quest for a rationale. III) A “symbolic” function which points out dangerous individuals in order to set them apart. The clinician becomes a prisoner of that notion. As an expert he is forced by the judicial process to restrict the psychic reality down to the responsibility and irresponsibility levels. The play-then moves on from the social to the individual scene. Within the institution, he must tell fantasies and reality apart while at the same time — caught in the trap — he becomes the “watcher” of those excluded. Society asks the clinician to restore its image of a perfect world but when the penalty is applied, it seems likely that it can be traced back to the same drives.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.053
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0110.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.322
GPT teacher head0.553
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207