Accompagnement spirituel ou « faire passer un chameau par le trou d’une aiguille… »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article offre un état de la question sur le domaine de l’accompagnement spirituel, plus particulièrement de l’intégration de la dimension spirituelle dans les soins. Pour ce faire, l’auteure a choisi quelques thèmes qui reviennent régulièrement dans la littérature médicale et soignante : la difficulté à se mettre d’accord sur des définitions précises, le développement de la recherche, la manière de poser un « diagnostic » spirituel ou une évaluation de la situation spirituelle du patient. Dans une seconde partie, l’auteure propose une réflexion plus personnelle. Elle met par exemple en évidence combien pour les soignants s’ouvrir aux questionnements et aux convictions de leurs malades nécessite un lâcher prise de leurs prétentions de maîtrise, oblige à se laisser surprendre et invite même à célébrer les mystères et les grâces de la vie.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".