La stagiaire sage-femme devant sa cliente : un double rapport au savoir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un double statut d’étudiant et d’expert caractérise la situation du stagiaire. Posant l’hypothèse que la tension qui s’exerce entre ces deux statuts est repérable dans le discours, nous avons analysé, dans une perspective interactionniste, le discours de deux stagiaires sages-femmes québécoises lors de consultations de suivi prénatal. Un double rapport au savoir acquis et à transmettre apparait, qui est étroitement lié à l’histoire récente de la profession de sage-femme au Québec. Les sages-femmes québécoises fondent leur identité professionnelle sur un ensemble de valeurs distinctives, parmi lesquelles le partage du savoir médical avec la cliente occupe une grande place. L’analyse montre l’adhésion de la stagiaire à cette valeur ; en cela, elle est déjà sage-femme. Mais le partage du savoir suppose une évaluation de la pertinence des informations à transmettre. Sur ce plan, la stagiaire reste une étudiante et doit encore acquérir un élément important de l’expertise : la souplesse dans le maniement de ce savoir.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".