Faire entrer le plurilinguisme dans les équipes cliniques : analyse contextuelle du travail avec interprète
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A partir del marco teórico del nicho de actividad profesional y de estudios efectuados en Quebec, nos proponemos realizar un retrato de las prácticas y representaciones del trabajo con intérpretes en el campo de la salud. Este retrato es realizado en un principio para los contextos no sensibles a las dimensiones lingüísticas y culturales de la atención en salud. La descripción es detallada después con dos estudios llevados a cabo en contextos sensibles. Esta comparación permite evidenciar los niveles de contexto que se deben tener en cuenta para la integración de los intérpretes en los equipos de atención en salud y para establecer una colaboración intérprete-profesional que sea de calidad: político, institucional (que incluye las dimensiones estructural y colaborativa), de formación y deontológico. Se describen las condiciones ideales para establecer una colaboración intérprete-profesional-usuario constructiva para cada uno de estos niveles.
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 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".