L'expérience d'évaluation clinique vécue par des infirmières de chirurgie lors de l'implantation de pratiques exemplaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de notre étude phénoménologique herméneutique (Benner, 1994) était de comprendre la signification, accordée par des infirmières de chirurgie, à l’évaluation clinique dans un contexte d’implantation de pratiques exemplaires. L’étude s’est déroulée dans un centre hospitalier affilié universitaire québécois auprès de 9 infirmières soignantes. Les données ont été recueillies au moyen d’une période d’observation de la pratique et d’entrevues individuelles semi-structurées. Les résultats ont révélé quatre sous-thèmes qui réunis, composent ce thème principal. Dans un contexte de pratiques exemplaires en soins infirmiers, l’évaluation clinique réalisée par des infirmières de chirurgie est un processus implicite, discret, adapté et continu, facilité par l’engagement de l’infirmière pour connaître le patient, son histoire et son avenir afin de promouvoir une évolution favorable.
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 | 0.022 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".