Oeuvrer pour la promotion et la défense de la neuropsychologie : exemple de l'OFPN, une association française dynamique !
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’Organisation Française des Psychologues spécialisés en Neuropsychologie (OFPN) est née d’une démarche initiée il y a plusieurs années. Dès 2008, via un premier rassemblement et le développement de nombreuses associations locales, les professionnels en neuropsychologie avaient à cœur de s’organiser. Officiellement créée en 2014 sur le triple socle d’une plateforme internet riche de ressources, de la revue Les Cahiers de Neuropsychologie Clinique et du Congrès National de Neuropsychologie Clinique (CNNC), l’OFPN a comme principales missions de promouvoir la neuropsychologie clinique, de susciter et d'accompagner des travaux d'amélioration de notre pratique ainsi que d’appuyer et de défendre la motivation de nos pairs. Malgré son jeune âge, le dynamisme de l'OFPN rencontre un franc succès auprès des professionnels, mais également auprès des instances de santé publique. Représentante au niveau national et international, l'OFPN se veut porteuse d’un avenir plus structuré et d’une pratique plus cohérente, toujours en perfectionnement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".