Le dispositif institutionnel et la relation thérapeutique en salle d'accouchement : entre le risque, le savoir hégémonique et les rapports de pouvoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce mémoire vise à établir la complexité de la relation thérapeutique entre l’infirmière et le couple en salle d’accouchement. Sachant que la relation thérapeutique est essentielle à la réussite du processus de soins, sa conceptualisation demeure primordiale pour une meilleure compréhension de son impact et pour mener à bien les soins. Cette recherche ethnographique a voulu documenter les relations des infirmières avec des couples en salle d’accouchement dans un hôpital de l’île de Montréal. Ce mémoire aborde un thème central de l’anthropologie : les relations humaines. La question clef de ce mémoire questionne les facteurs qui entravent et qui favorisent la relation thérapeutique entre l’infirmière et le couple en salle d’accouchement. Cette recherche démontre des lacunes théoriques qui technicisent la relation thérapeutique et indique que la notion du risque, les normes institutionnelles, l’hégémonie du savoir obstétrical et le pouvoir médical sont des facteurs qui semblent avoir une grande influence dans la relation thérapeutique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".