MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995715115 · doi:10.7202/1066111ar

Les conduites éthiques et le rétablissement

2019· article· fr· W2995715115 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mélissa Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une lecture critique du paradigme de rétablissement en santé mentale dans le champ du travail social, en analysant les conduites éthiques quotidiennes associées à ce concept. Nous avons effectué une revue de littérature d’articles scientifiques publiés en travail social dans deux bases de données et six journaux, à partir de laquelle nous avons choisi un échantillon randomisé de 45 articles. Une analyse poststructuraliste du discours montre que le rétablissement est traversé par une éthique de soi congruente avec des attentes normatives. Nous proposons ensuite des pistes voulant éviter l’emploi d’interventions totalisantes et imposantes en travail social.

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)0.074
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.100
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0740.100
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.047
Scholarly communication0.0140.016
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.266
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207