Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historiquement approché à travers le prisme de la morale (théologie, philosophie), le suicide relève depuis le XIX e siècle de l’analyse scientifique (psychiatrie, sociologie…). Son étude est-elle pour autant objective, exempte de croyance ? Il s’agit ici d’interroger la démarche scientifique : ne faut-il voir dans le suicide qu’un problème social à résoudre ou l’analyser comme un problème sociologique, un fait social total ? Étudier, par exemple, suicidologie et prévention du suicide dans l’ensemble de leurs dimensions, et pas uniquement dans une logique d’évaluation, permet de révéler valeurs, normes, facteurs socioculturels sous-jacents influençant théorie et pratique des soignants, d’observer comment les individus intègrent les enjeux de prévention et de sortir de l’aporie des critiques paradoxales adressées à la prévention (inefficacité / contrôle social) en montrant son rôle d’agent de transformation sociale.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".