MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415008675

Soins et services de santé mentale à l’intention des lesbiennes, des gais, des bisexuels, des transgenres et des queers

2014· article· fr· W2415008675 on OpenAlexaffabout
Albina Veltman, Gary Chaimowitz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2014
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePsychologyPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’Association des psychiatres du Canada participe resolument a la lutte contre la stigmatisation et la discrimination, ferme dans sa volonte de tout mettre en œuvre pour defendre cette cause, quoiqu’elle s’attarde principalement aux personnes aux prises avec une maladie mentale. Neanmoins, elle est consciente de l’ampleur de la stigmatisation et de la discrimination pour des motifs de sexe, de race, d’orientation sexuelle ou de religion qui ont cours dans la societe1. Malheureusement, la psychiatrie est connue en retrospective pour avoir assimile l’homosexualite, la bisexualite, la transidentite et le genre queer aux maladies mentales et, ce faisant, elle a contribue a son corps defendant au phenomene de la stigmatisation et de la discrimination a l’egard des personnes se disant lesbiennes, gais, bisexuelles, transgenres, transsexuelles ou queers (LGBTQ); non seulement la stigmatisation et la discrimination ont des effets deleteres sur leur sante mentale, mais elles entravent egalement leur acces aux soins de sante mentale appropries. Le present enonce de principes entend souligner la necessite pour la profession de bien comprendre la situation et les besoins des personnes LGBTQ sur le plan de la sante mentale.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.006

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207