Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les aspects relationnels et affectifs des soins, en contexte bureaucratique et technico-scientifique. L’analyse d’un protocole de toucher affectif applicable à des vieillards déficients, de l’expérience d’un patient sous respirateur et de la douleur comme réalité subjective aboutit à la distinction entre trois formes de singularité : celle proposée par la science — capable par exemple d’identifier notre unicité génétique —, celle qui résulte de nos interrelations avec notre entourage et celle enfin qui correspond à la perception la plus subjective de soi et du monde. Ces trois variantes de notre identité, qui coexistent en chacun de nous et renvoient à autant de vérités distinctes, sont hétérogènes et irréductibles. Les organisations et les techniques négligent l’autonomie des niveaux subjectifs et intersubjectifs; la recherche scientifique devrait elle-même veiller à maintenir l’équilibre d’une complexité qui la dépasse.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".