MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2389592935 · doi:10.7202/1039164ar

Traité de pensée magique pour jeunes adolescents1

2017· article· fr· W2389592935 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Serge Larrivée

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de psychoéducation · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyConnotationArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au cours de ce texte, je présente d’abord le contenu du livre de Pierre Morency et de Valérie Fontaine, Demande et reçois, chapitre par chapitre. À l’aide d’une série d’affirmations fallacieuses, l’auteur tente de convaincre les jeunes adolescents qu’ils peuvent obtenir tout ce qu’ils désirent. Comment? Il suffit de le demander en évitant de douter, et surtout de laisser de côté tout esprit critique. La deuxième partie comporte six réflexions supplémentaires sur le contenu de ce livre, dont certaines à connotation éthique.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de psychoéducationSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207