MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3012950043 · doi:10.3138/cbmh.349-042019

Travailler auprès des familles indigentes : les gardes-malades catholiques à l’avant-garde de la santé communautaire au Canada (1934–1959)

2020· article· fr· W3012950043 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Geneviève McCready, Marie-Claude Thifault

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health History · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTechnocracyHumanitiesFace (sociological concept)Political scienceSociologyPoliticsPhilosophyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plusieurs textes du Bulletin des gardes-malades catholiques et du Bulletin des infirmières catholiques du Canada se réfèrent à la philosophie personnaliste. Dans cet article, nous faisons l’hypothèse que cette philosophie a influencé le « sens social » promu par l’Église auprès des gardes-malades de 1934 à 1959 et qu’elle a favorisé le passage du modèle charitable à celui d’une contestation de l’ordre social. Nous présentons les Bulletins en tant que moteurs de résistance face à une science considérée comme dépourvue de moralité et face à la montée d’une technocratie administrative représentée comme nuisible pour les conditions d’existence de l’humain. Ces sources nous permettent d’interpréter différemment la contribution des gardes-malades à la modernisation des soins dispensés auprès des familles les plus démunies. Nous soutenons que c’est à l’extérieur des institutions et inspirées par le personnalisme que les gardes-malades francophones catholiques ont jeté les bases de la santé communautaire au Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health HistorySame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207