La supervision du personnel clinique : quelques éléments de conceptualisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le contexte institutionnel, la supervision prend une importance considérable étant donné le matériel clinique imposant que doivent absorber les cliniciens. S'il sait faire preuve de certaines qualités fondamentales, le superviseur peut, par l'entremise d'une méthode particulière, fournir au clinicien les outils dont il a besoin pour donner un sens à la réalité parfois pénible avec laquelle il doit vivre. En ce sens, le présent article constitue une tentative de conceptualisation de la démarche de supervision et il propose une procédure qui devrait faire de cet exercice un outil de formation plutôt qu'une simple coopération interdisciplinaire. Le but ultime de cette démarche consiste à redonner au clinicien l'entière responsabilité du processus de compréhension de l'événement. Il s'agit donc, en définitive, d'un effort pour amoindrir la dépendance suscitée par les situations critiques.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".