Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis de nombreuses années, les infirmières participent à l’avancement des connaissances au sein de la profession. Des théories aux modèles conceptuels, plusieurs ont proposé leur vision sur la façon d’atteindre cet objectif. Par-delà la diversité et les divergences d’opinions, des conceptions monistes et pluralistes se dégagent de leur prise de position. Utilisant les théories des sociétés closes et ouvertes de Karl Popper (1979) et la définition du pluralisme de McLennan (1995), cette étude plaide en faveur du pluralisme en sciences infirmières. Le pluralisme offre la possibilité aux infirmières chercheuses de combiner leurs recherches à d’autres théories, d’autres concepts, d’autres approches et d’autres disciplines pour permettre une analyse plus poussée et une perspective plus large de la discipline infirmière. Cette étude représente une réflexion théorique sur la recherche en sciences infirmières qui va dans le sens de l’interdisciplinarité.
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 | 0.058 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".