MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2635655080 · doi:10.7202/1040076ar

Le coaching en psychologie positive : cultiver le bien-être, les émotions positives et les forces personnelles

2017· article· fr· W2635655080 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Iliona Boniwell, Carol Kauffman

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de psychologie · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent article offre une vue d’ensemble des applications concrètes du coaching en psychologie positive. À cette fin, on présente les processus et les outils de la psychologie positive de même que la manière dont les théories de la psychologie positive peuvent influencer l’approche adoptée à l’endroit du client et la coconstruction de la relation. On discute d’interventions spécifiques en fonction du type de buts que poursuit le client au cours des sessions. Ainsi, on explore comment la psychologie positive influence le processus et le contenu du coaching.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de psychologieSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207