MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106909109 · doi:10.7202/037870ar

De la prévention du suicide comme une question sociologique

2009· article· fr· W2106909109 on OpenAlex
Matthieu Lustman

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.317 · 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