Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les professionnels de la santé sont directement interpellés par le défi du système de santé québécois et canadien. La diversité et la force du leadership infirmier agissent comme un véritable levier dans la transformation du système. Cet article fait valoir l’engagement des infirmières autour du projet proposé par l’Ordre des infirmières et infirmiers du Québec (OIIQ), à la fois mobilisateur et facilitateur du changement. Fortement inspirées par l’approche LEADS du Collège canadien des leaders en santé (CCLS) 1 , les auteures ajoutent d’autres marqueurs cruciaux propres au leadership clinique infirmier, réunis sous l’acronyme de LEADERS. La présentation de résultats auprès des personnes soignées, de leur famille, des équipes de soins et des établissements, renforce la marque distinctive de ce leadership exercé sur le terrain. Des témoignages glanés auprès de leaders soutiennent la place déterminante de l’infirmière dans le réseau de la santé. Pour façonner l’avenir, les auteures misent sur les forces du leadership clinique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".