Entre rationalité scientifique et croyances individuelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une étude qualitative menée en France sur le thème du « moral » en cancérologie, cet article interroge la façon dont les soignants mobilisent quotidiennement des représentations et des champs sémantiques tant savants que profanes. Outre le fait de nuancer les regards posés sur les professionnels de la santé, ce texte cherche à expliciter les fondements de ces pratiques : c’est-à-dire la perméabilité des frontières et les tensions entre des registres « scientifiques » et les croyances culturelles, les idéologies professionnelles et les convictions personnelles. Afin d’enrichir les concepts de « clinical narrative » et de « political economy of hope », les auteurs en appellent au développement de recherches anthropologiques axées sur la construction de stratégies d’adaptation dans les situations liminales de mises en échec des logiques professionnelles (gestion de l’incertitude/gestion de la récidive et de la fin de vie).
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 | 0.042 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".