Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’ouverture de la biomédecine actuelle à l’expérience spirituelle des patients implique des transformations de la notion même de spiritualité, quand on compare celle-ci à la signification qu’elle possédait dans les traditions spirituelles chrétiennes. Dans ce texte je soutiens que l’un des mécanismes d’accueil et de production de l’objet spirituel dans le monde biomédical consiste en une forme d’éthicisation de la spiritualité. Je prétends que le langage de la spiritualité recouvre un objet qu’il convient mieux, me semble-t-il, de nommer « éthique ». Le langage biomédical utilisé pour désigner l’expérience spirituelle en temps de maladie mobilise des catégories qui relèvent davantage d’une forme de pensée que la longue tradition réflexive occidentale sur l’action humaine associe à l’éthique que d’une forme de pensée associée aux spiritualités issues de traditions religieuses.
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 | 0.028 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".