La discipline infirmière comme discipline créole : retour sur le pluriel, les emprunts et les rencontres qui l’animent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A reflection on the evolution of the nursing discipline requires us to question various motives borrowed from other disciplines. While some may be reluctant to borrow, they also believe that borrowing undermines the assertion and autonomy of the discipline itself. This text suggests defining the nursing discipline based on the merits of the confluences, heritages, and plurality that make up its landscape. Advocating that the discipline is fundamentally heterogeneous, the author demonstrates that the creole metaphor can be relevant because of the identity and interdisciplinary pitfalls that it conveys, in addition to the quest for emancipation and recognition that underlies it. From there, he illustrates the processes of syncretism that are at play using an analysis of knowledge borrowed from humanities and social sciences. By tracking the content flows, he identifies the logic of ?breaking? and reinterpreting, rendering them intelligible and relevant for the discipline of nursing. This text concludes with some requirements that would accompany the creole metaphor, supposing it were to be taken up within the discipline.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".