La Women’s Health Initiative : controverses et impacts sur la relation médecin‑patient au Québec et en France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En juillet 2002, l’annonce des résultats de l’étude WHI, remettait en question l’innocuité de l’hormonothérapie substitutive. L’objectif de cette recherche qualitative comparative, réalisée auprès de 28 cliniciens, est de comprendre leurs réactions aux « nouvelles » informations concernant les risques associés à l’hormonothérapie. Nous nous sommes également attachés à comprendre comment cette évolution des connaissances entourant l’hormonothérapie avait transformé le déroulement des consultations de ménopause et à voir dans quelle mesure elle a entraîné une renégociation de la confiance. La controverse entourant la publication de l’étude WHI fournit ainsi l’occasion de mieux cerner le rôle que joue le traitement hormonal au sein de la relation médecin-patient et constitue également une opportunité d’interroger la thèse de Giddens sur la portée réflexive du risque.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".