[Encountering the subject in the health field: a human care theory based on lived experience].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dominated by a bio-mechanistic paradigm, Western health systems are suffering from numerous problems. One such problem is the lack of consideration for lived experiences and the complexity and depth of meaning that characterize them. We accordingly emphasize in this text the importance of talking a deep look at the experiences of the cared-for Subject and changing the viewpoint on his or her problems. We defend this viewpoint with the help of a few ideas borrowed from Georges Canguilhem. We then refer to a socio-phenomenological approach inspired by the work of Alfred Schütz which allows us to better grasp people's lived experiences. We thus rehabilitate the Subject by proposing a human care theory that focuses on its' relationship(s) with the body, others, time and space, as well as on self-referent identity labels that give meaning to one's existence. This study is a theoretical reflection on human care that considers professional collaboration and interdisciplinarity, and that does not ignore the concrete practices of stakeholders and professionals.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".