MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400296301 · doi:10.3917/dia.244.0083

Le deuil épistémique : trajectoires familiales et sociales vers la radicalisation « hybride »

2024· article· fr· W4400296301 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samuel P. L. Veissière, Janique Johnson‐Lafleur, Cindy Ngov, Christian Savard, Cécile Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueDialogue · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article s’appuie sur les résultats d’une étude menée en partenariat entre une équipe pluridisciplinaire de cliniciens en santé mentale de Montréal, spécialisés en intervention auprès de personnes attirées par ou engagées dans l’extrémisme violent, et une équipe de recherche qui documente et étudie les interventions de l’équipe. L’étude documente l’émergence de systèmes de croyances de plus en plus dystopiques, hétérogènes et violents, particulièrement chez les jeunes. La perte de confiance dans les institutions et un malaise autour des représentations et rôles de genre sont des thématiques récurrentes. Une analyse des dynamiques familiales et sociales dans les trajectoires de patients attirés par l’extrémisme violent suggère l’existence de processus traumatiques de quête de sens et d’appartenance qui font écho à des mécanismes de perte, de régression et de deuil. Les auteurs proposent de concevoir ce mécanisme comme un « deuil épistémique » qui pourrait aider à expliquer l’émergence d’idéologies hybrides dans le paysage de l’extrémisme violent.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0130.074
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.215
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDialogueSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207