MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147365030 · doi:10.7202/038598ar

Réparer le cercle : la responsabilisation de l’Autochtone alcoolique

2009· article· fr· W2147365030 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alexandra Pronovost

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article fournit une réflexion critique de la relation entre l’alcool et les Autochtones à partir d’une revue holistique des travaux produits dans le champ des sciences sociales et médicales. Les institutions juridiques et de la santé, ainsi que les milieux universitaires, ont participé à la construction d’une relation « problématique » entre l’alcool et les Autochtones. Or, le concept de l’alcoolisme devrait, selon nous, être abordé en tant que réponse culturelle et en tant que manifestation des troubles identitaires individuels et communautaires résultant des déstructurations profondes que l’insertion des Autochtones à l’État-nation a provoquées. Actuellement, l’État, sous pression de groupes politiques autochtones, tente de redonner de l’autonomie aux communautés autochtones tout en conservant une vision « victimisante » des Autochtones. L’autonomisation des peuples autochtones couplée à une « dévictimisation » peut inciter l’individu alcoolique à ne plus se considérer de cette manière, mais plutôt comme un adulte responsable envers lui-même et sa communauté. Afin d’accéder à l’autonomie gouvernementale, cette responsabilisation est nécessaire, car les communautés ont besoin de nouveaux modèles sains et autonomes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.132 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207