Représentations de la maladie mentale et recours à la contrainte
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La tradition psychiatrique française est marquée d’une spécificité – la tradition analytique – ayant une présence bien moins forte dans de nombreux autres pays. La psychiatrie dispose en outre de moyens thérapeutiques ignorés par les autres disciplines médicales, en particulier la possibilité d’imposer aux patients, dans certaines conditions, des soins sans leur consentement. Peut-on envisager que les représentations de la maladie mentale, portées par les psychiatres, puissent avoir un lien avec le recours à des formes de contrainte ? Nous tenterons d’apporter une réponse à cette question à partir d’une enquête de type sociologique menée auprès de 90 psychiatres entre 2012 et 2013. Trois types d’attitudes sont majoritairement partagées à l’égard des descriptions de la maladie mentale par l’ensemble des psychiatres néanmoins des corrélations se dégagent entre certaines des interprétations proposées de ces grands types (modèle médical, paradigme individuocentré de type subjectiviste) selon les usages que les médecins ont de la contrainte.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".