S'approprier la théorie du Human Caring de Jean Watson par la pratique réflexive lors d'une situation clinique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essentiellement basée sur des valeurs humanistes de respect, de collaboration et d’unicité plutôt que sur l’objectivation, le contrôle et la catégorisation de la personne soignée, l’intervention des professionnels inspirée de l’approche du « caring » se fera dans le respect incontesté de la dignité humaine de la personne et de sa famille. Si nous considérons que le caring est au cœur des soins infirmiers et qu’il représente son essence, les infirmières devront alors faire un effort conscient afin de préserver cette approche humaniste et relationnelle du soin dans leur pratique clinique (Cara, 2004b ; O’Reilly, 2008, Watson, 2002). Pour se faire, les théories du caring , comme celle de Jean Watson, s’avèrent indispensables. Inspiré de l’article de formation continue de Cara (2003), cette présente réflexion se veut pragmatique et vise la compréhension des éléments essentiels de la théorie du Human Caring de Watson, par le biais d’un exemple de pratique réflexive dans le cadre d’une situation clinique de réadaptation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".