Bilan des études sur les guides de pratique en santé : qu’en retirer pour la santé et la sécurité au travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le développement et l’évaluation des guides de pratique clinique ont fait l’objet d’un grand nombre d’études et de réflexions. Ces derniers sont vus comme un outil important dans le domaine du transfert des connaissances en vue de rationaliser et d’améliorer les pratiques. L’objectif de l’article est de faire le point sur les écrits publiés sur le développement, l’utilisation, l’évaluation, l’implantation et les impacts des guides de pratique clinique dans le domaine de la santé afin d’en dégager les enseignements clés et de déterminer ce qui pourrait s’appliquer à la SST ou au contraire serait peu approprié. Les assises à partir desquelles s‘articulent les développements sont présentées, ainsi que les points de vue des chercheurs, des développeurs de guides et des utilisateurs.
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 | 0.192 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".