Validité discriminante de l’échelle de cognition sociale et de relation d’objet (SCORS, version française) pour coter les récits TAT. Comparaison entre groupes clinique et non clinique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude a pour but d’évaluer la validité discriminante de la version française de la méthode SCORS (Social Cognition and Object Relation Scale). Procédure : les cotations SCORS de récits TAT ont été comparées entre deux groupes (non clinique et clinique). Méthode : les récits TAT de 114 participants (47 non cliniques et 67 cliniques) ont été recueillis et les planches 1, 2, 3BM et 13MF ont été cotées par deux juges indépendants. Puis nous avons comparé les résultats des deux groupes. Résultats : la fidélité interjuge entre coteurs est bonne, voire excellente suivant les échelles; il y a des différences entre les moyennes des deux groupes aux échelles de SCORS dans le sens attendu. Cela montre la validité discriminante de la version française de SCORS. Les implications cliniques et scientifiques de ces résultats sont discutées.
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 | 0.023 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".