Une revue de la portée sur la pratique infirmière auprès des personnes âgées issues de la diversité sexuelle et de genre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context : The elder population is growing up and sexual and gender diversity older adults (SGDOA) live discrimination from healthcare professionals. In this context, this scoping review sought to describe the extent of knowledge about nursing practice among SGDOA and to synthesize the implications for clinical nursing practice. Method : The scoping review method according to the framework of Peters et al. of the Joanna Briggs Institute has been adopted. Results : The recommendations were grouped into five axes : raising awareness of the existence of SGDOA, their historical context and their health problems ; refrain from heterocissexist and heterocisnormative assumptions by adopting an inclusive language and an open attitude ; support SGDOA and their caregivers or their family of choice ; create a safe and confidential environment ; and promote the inclusion of SGDOA in the health care system. Conclusion : The results could be used by nurses and other health professionals to optimize the quality of care for SGDOA and to promote their inclusion.
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 | 0.058 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".