Réponse à « Repenser les suppositions concernant la survivance au cancer » : une perspective de la discipline infirmière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En réponse à l’article de nos collègues des sciences sociales et humaines, Repenser les suppositions concernant la survivance au cancer (Ristovski-Slijepcevic & Bell, 2014, RCSIO p. 174), nous présentons une perspective de la discipline infirmière sur quelques-uns des messages dominants qui sous-tendraient la survivance au cancer. Nous éclairons des points de disjonction dans leur article en l’examinant de près dans une perspective infirmière afin de décrire et d’expliquer les phénomènes complexes faisant partie inhérente de l’expérience de survivance au cancer et des répercussions de cette dernière sur la pratique clinique. Nous soulignons les possibilités de collaboration avec nos collègues des sciences sociales et humaines afin de promouvoir le développement synergique du savoir qui servira, en bout de ligne, à améliorer les soins dispensés aux personnes vivant pendant et après un cancer.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".