Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les faiblesses de cet ouvrage-que toute personne engagée dans l'autisme se doit cependant de travailler en profondeursont d'abord de rester axé sur l'autisme B l'âge infantile, et d'Ltre fort bref sur l'autisme adulte.Ensuite, il nous semble manquer l'évolution actuelle de l'autisme comme différence contributoire B l'humanité plutôt que comme maladie.Au niveau nosographique, on peut aussi regretter l'absence de critPres opératoires pour l'« autisme atypique ».Par ailleurs, nous ne pensons pas justifié de placer l'autisme de haut niveau dans les formes d'autisme B début tardif.Celui-ci, B la différence du syndrome d'Asperger, est en effet indiscernable avant trois ans des formes B début précoce, aussi bien que des formes apparaissant dans la deuxiPme année.Au niveau scientifique, bien que trPs documenté, il ne peut se substituer aux manuels anglophones.Enfin, le livre aurait pu Ltre plus concis, mais est toujours d'une écriture claire et élégante. Psychiatrie générale
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.010 |
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".