MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386488691 · doi:10.7202/1105594ar

La nature en soutien au rétablissement : retombées et constats d’une intervention de groupe en contexte de nature auprès de jeunes adultes ayant vécu un premier épisode psychotique

2023· article· fr· W4386488691 on OpenAlexaff
Justine Pellerin, Virginie Gargano

Bibliographic record

VenueIntervention · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Therapy and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le premier épisode psychotique (PEP) est un trouble mental grave qui touche majoritairement les jeunes adultes. C’est un phénomène multidimensionnel et complexe duquel il est possible de se rétablir. Certains travaux démontrent des relations entre le rétablissement et les interventions facilitant la mobilisation des ressources personnelles et environnementales des personnes. Parmi celles-ci se trouvent les pratiques centrées sur la nature et l’aventure (PCNA). Bien que ces pratiques soient particulièrement reconnues pour leurs bienfaits sur le rétablissement en santé mentale, peu de travaux portent sur les PCNA réalisées auprès des personnes ayant vécu un PEP. Cet article a donc pour but d’exposer les retombées d’un projet d’intervention réalisé en nature auprès de jeunes adultes ayant vécu un PEP. Les retombées montrent que l’intervention a été bénéfique sur les dimensions clinique, existentielle, fonctionnelle, physique et sociale du rétablissement. En tenant compte de la nature de ce projet et de ses limites, cet article met en lumière le potentiel de telles démarches en travail social auprès des personnes ayant vécu un PEP.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInterventionSame topicChild Therapy and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207