MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201153395 · doi:10.3917/psys.213.0123

Ado ou addict : il faut choisir !

2021· article· fr· W3201153395 on OpenAlexaff
Marion Haza, Joan Bernaud

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychothérapies · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier de l'Université Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, à partir du cas clinique de Mark, 15 ans, adolescent aux prises du pubertaire et de stupéfiants, nous proposons une réflexion autour de la difficulté à appréhender les conduites addictives extrêmes à l’adolescence et à offrir une possibilité de soin réellement adapté. L’article montre comment Mark est dans une problématique d’agirs typiquement adolescente, impliquant des consommations massives, des violences envers lui-même et des conduites suicidaires. Il indique également les difficultés de continuité de soin à apporter à ces adolescents ne rentrant pas dans les cases prédéfinies de la psychiatrie. L’objectif de ce texte est d’illustrer avec Mark cette réalité bien repérée de cloisonnement entre pédopsychiatrie et addictologie, nuisant aux prises en charge et nécessitant de lier processus pubertaire et enjeux des addictions. Il nous semble que l’analyse de la clinique des addictions en termes de sensorialité et symbolisation (à savoir selon une appréhension du monde au plus près des sensations et du corporel) ouvre la voie vers de nouveaux regards à porter sur ces actes symptomatologiques, afin d’apprécier une prise en charge englobant tant les enjeux du pubertaire que de la psychiatrie des conduites addictives.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychothérapiesSame topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology ResearchFrench-language works237,207