Expérience psychique du recours à un humour agressif à l’adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’humour occupe une place importante dans le quotidien des adolescents. Les échanges de commentaires humoristiques entre pairs sont courants ; ceux qui se font sur ton de moquerie ne font pas exception. Dans le cadre de la présente recherche exploratoire, des entrevues qualitatives ont été conduites avec six adolescents qui utilisent fréquemment un humour agressif dans leurs interactions sociales. Leurs paroles sont rapportées dans cet article et permettent de mieux comprendre l’expérience subjective d’une telle pratique humoristique à la période adolescente. L’analyse du discours des participants avec un point de vue psychanalytique a permis de mettre en lumière des fonctions de compromis remplies par le recours à un humour agressif. Ce phénomène semble se situer dans une position intermédiaire entre expression et épargne affective, entre passage à l’acte et élaboration psychique, ainsi qu’entre transgression et intégration des limites.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".