Des professionnels de santé mentale engagés auprès d’un réseau d’entendeurs de voix dans un programme de chez soi d’abord
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le modèle du rétablissement, autant que le mouvement des entendeurs de voix, requalifient la parole des usagers comme devant être prise en compte par les soignants. Cette ingérence des usagers dans l’expertise du sens à donner à leur voix entre en tension avec celle de soignants militants, particulièrement des psychiatres alliés à ce mouvement des usagers. Sur le terrain, cette alliance s’avère éprouvante. Sur un site expérimental marseillais, les professionnels traversent différentes tensions et embarras de pratique qui les emmènent à reconsidérer leur pouvoir/savoir antérieur. Cette épreuve de solidarisation les entraine à la fois à adopter une posture plus humble sur leur expertise clinique et plus ambitieuse quant à la part qu’ils prennent à la construction de controverses publiques rendues visibles par l’expérience de la prise de parole des entendeurs de voix.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".