Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This editorial forms part of a themed issue on vulnerability and risk across the life course. The six articles in this issue explore the issues that arise when key individuals are not considered competent to assess risks and make decisions. The articles by Bailey and her colleagues and by Cott and Tierne focus on older people whose competence is affected by cognitive impairment, Clarke and Edge and Eyles consider issues that affect babies and young children and Spencer and Thing and Ottesen explore the way older children or young people manage risk. All the articles show that risk is contested in terms of who should manage it and how it is defined. The articles indicate that relatives play a key role in assessing risk and making decisions on behalf of older people with cognitive impairment, babies and young children. Drawing on an empirical study of older people with cognitive impairment Cott and Tierne show that relatives are reluctant to intervene and take over decisions, as they do not want to undermine the independence of their elderly relative. They engage in a balancing act tolerating the normal hazards of everyday life but taking action when they identified new and worrying dangers or ‘red flags’. In the case of young children, as Clarke's analysis of articles in one high circulating mass print Canadian magazine, Chatelaine, mothers are expected to identify emerging behavioural and mental health problems and take expert advice to minimise harmful outcomes. However, expert advice on the nature and management of risk is contested. Edge and Eyles indicate that experts in Canada justified their decision to ban the chemical Bisphenol A from the babies bottles on evidence of potential harm, but the decision context was shaped by the ‘pro-health’ lobby campaign that appealed to emotions of the public emphasising the innocence and vulnerability of babies. The articles in this issue indicate the limit of the rational expert approach to risk. As Bailey indicates in a review of the literature on the care of older people with dementia, practitioners have tended to be risk averse, locating the risk in the older person and not in their social setting. Spencer and Thing and Ottesen show that young people see themselves as competent risk takers and have the self-confidence to resist adult and experts’ definition of risk. For these young people, the meaning of risk is embedded in everyday life and to enjoy life and have fun they have to balance time, energy and risks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».