Les interventions basées sur les résultats probants en réadaptation psychiatrique: Auxquelles accorder la priorité et pourquoi?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectif: Cette revue de littérature critique décrit les interventions psychosociales en réadaptation psychiatrique reconnues pour leurs résultats probants. Méthode: Une description brève des méta-analyses et (ou) des revues de littérature les plus récentes est présentée pour chaque intervention ciblée, ainsi qu'une description des interventions, de leur pertinence en réadaptation psychiatrique et de leurs limites. Résultats: Les interventions retenues sont: les interventions familiales, la thérapie cognitive-comportementale pour la psychose, l'entraînement aux habiletés sociales, la thérapie de remédiation cognitive, les programmes intégrés pour toxicomanie et troubles mentaux, et les programmes de soutien à l'emploi. Conclusions: Les interventions en réadaptation psychiatrique retenues dans ce article sont non seulement basées sur des résultats probants, mais offrent aussi des outils cliniques pour le rétablissement de la personne souffrant d'un trouble mental.
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 | 0.033 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".