Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les États-Unis présentent un ensemble de paradoxes dans (1) leur conception de l’addiction et son étiologie, (2) les tendances dans le traitement de l’addiction, (3) la prévalence probable de l’addiction au siècle prochain. Au moment où la science américaine réduit l’addiction aux impulsions cérébrales résultant de la consommation de drogue, une tendance tout aussi forte consiste pour les Américains à voir les investissements compulsifs de tous types (par exemple, dans les jeux vidéo) comme potentiellement addictifs. Bien que le modèle neurobiologique de l’addiction promette une pharmacothérapie et d’autres traitements médicaux, les pratiques de traitement en plus fortes augmentations (outre l’approche en douze étapes, qui n’est elle-même pas médicale) sont les approches environnementales, cognitives et comportementales. Bien que l’espoir de remèdes médicaux et de vaccinations prédomine, quasiment personne aux États-Unis ne croit que l’addiction sera vaincue, ou même réduite.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
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".