L’alexithymie : clé de compréhension ou obstacle à l’accompagnement des auteurs de violence conjugale ? Vignettes cliniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article présente quatre vignettes cliniques examinant l’expression et l’évolution de l’alexithymie chez les usagers d’un service belge, Praxis, qui propose un programme de responsabilisation en groupe pour auteurs de violence conjugale. Ces vignettes sont issues et viennent compléter les résultats d’une recherche longitudinale qui réunit des associations de terrain et des chercheurs universitaires, tant au Québec qu’en Belgique, et dont l’objectif est d’évaluer le changement psychologique chez ces hommes au terme de leur prise en charge thérapeutique. Les résultats montrent une prévalence des troubles alexithymiques et dépressifs chez les participants, en comparaison avec la population générale. La discussion des vignettes fait ressortir une hypothèse majeure relative à l’éventuelle distinction entre la présence d’une alexithymie primaire et d’une alexithymie secondaire.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".