Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche en santé mentale constitue un domaine dans lequel le monopole des chercheurs sur la production de la science est particulièrement fort. Mais c’est également un domaine de recherche où ce monopole est remis en question, comme en témoignent les revendications, depuis les années 1970, de regroupements de personnes avec une expérience vécue des problèmes de santé mentale. Leurs critiques envers la production traditionnelle de la science ont contribué à l’essor d’approches participatives qui visent à placer les savoirs expérientiels de ces personnes au cœur des processus de recherche. En nous appuyant sur une analyse de la littérature anglo-saxonne, nous présentons, dans cet article, plusieurs types de recherche participative en santé mentale, leurs épistémologies sous-jacentes, et discutons de leur contribution au développement de rapports plus égalitaires dans la production des savoirs scientifiques en santé mentale.
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 | 0.122 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".