MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006069421 · doi:10.7202/1067043ar

Expériences de la stigmatisation en lien avec la santé mentale chez des jeunes de trois communautés au Nouveau-Brunswick

2020· article· fr· W3006069421 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Carole C. Tranchant, Penelopia Iancu, Anik Dubé, Laure Bourdon, Lacey Clair, Danielle Doucet, Anne Dezetter, Sophie Robichaud, Julie Malchow, Aduel Joachin, Ann M. Beaton

Bibliographic record

VenueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaire · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude vise à comprendre comment les jeunes recourant à des services en santé mentale (SM) perçoivent la stigmatisation en SM et comment cela a été vécu durant leur parcours de soins et de rétablissement. Des groupes de discussion avec 25 jeunes ont été réalisés dans trois communautés (autochtone dans une région isolée, francophone rurale et anglophone urbaine). L’analyse thématique révèle que leurs expériences de la stigmatisation sont marquées par diverses formes de discrédit et par le traitement différentiel déshumanisant qui les conduit à rechercher des alternatives non stigmatisantes et comblant mieux leurs besoins. Ainsi, ces jeunes orientent activement leurs parcours de soins en SM selon la stigmatisation perçue. D’importantes nuances socioculturelles ont également été identifiées quant aux expériences et stratégies des jeunes et éléments favorisant ou atténuant la stigmatisation. Leurs perspectives sont riches d’enseignements pour déstigmatiser les services de SM pour les jeunes de différents groupes culturels.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.376 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReflets Revue d’intervention sociale et communautaireSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207