Les 25 ans de la <em>Revue canadienne de santé mental communautaire</em>: Observations et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En tant qu’ancien rédacteur de la Revue canadienne de santé mentale communautaire (RCSMC), membre de longue date de son comité de rédaction et collaborateur régulier, j’ai accepté avec plaisir de commenter l’analyse de contenu de la RCSMC faite par Fortin-Pellerin, Pouliot-Lapointe, Thibodeau et Gagné. Je tiens d’abord à préciser que je ne prétends pas ici faire un compte rendu objectif, non seulement à cause de mon profond investissement dans la Revue, mais aussi à cause de ma partialité, de mes valeurs et de ma position privilégiée, tant personnelles que professionnelles, qui m’empêchent d’être totalement objectif. Je peux toutefois offrir, en tant qu’universitaire et psychologue communautaire, quelques réflexions et des pistes pour l’avenir de la RCSMC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
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".