MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2506943311 · doi:10.7870/cjcmh-2016-030

Les croyances par rapport aux voix, les stratégies d’adaptation et le fonctionnement social de personnes atteintes de schizophrénie

2016· article· fr· W2506943311 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Myreille St‐Onge, Sophie Grégoire, Stéphanie Breault-Ruel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Community Mental Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPain Management and Placebo Effect
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article traite des personnes atteintes de schizophrénie qui entendent des voix. Il a pour objectif de décrire les croyances qu’elles entretiennent par rapport à leurs voix, le degré d’anxiété qu’elles ressentent et leur perception relativement à leur fonctionnement social. Les stratégies d’adaptation qu’un sous-groupe de l’échantillon déploie sont exposées. Cette recherche s’appuie sur le modèle cognitif ABC qui stipule que les hallucinations auditives sont des événements déclencheurs (A) auxquels les individus donnent un sens en construisant un système de croyances (B) pouvant entraîner des réactions émotionnelles et comportementales (C). Les analyses statistiques montrent que les personnes rapportant des voix omnipotentes plus fortes ont tendance à y résister davantage sur le plan émotionnel et à avoir un moins bon fonctionnement social. Les personnes qui résistent à leurs voix ont tendance à démontrer un degré d’anxiété plus élevé. Les analyses qualitatives font ressortir un consensus à l’effet que prendre sa médication et se distraire des voix sont les stratégies jugées les plus faciles à réaliser et les plus efficaces pour composer avec elles.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Community Mental HealthSame topicPain Management and Placebo EffectFrench-language works237,207