Le groupe SEMA : Un groupe « philo-éducatif » innovateur pour partager son expérience morale comme proche aidant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les caractéristiques et le déroulement d’un groupe d’éducation innovateur auprès des proches aidants. En huit ou neuf rencontres de deux heures et demie (2 h 30) chacune, la démarche vise à sensibiliser les proches aidants à l’expérience morale vécue dans l’exercice de leur rôle. Les écrits démontrent que ce sont les dilemmes éthiques rencontrés au quotidien qui contribuent le plus à l’épuisement des aidants et que cette expérience de soin peut s’avérer moralement douloureuse pour certains. Basées sur un modèle théorique qui décline en sept processus la construction du sentiment de responsabilité morale qui incombe aux aidants, les activités proposées aux membres permettent une réflexion éthique qui donne un nouveau sens à leur rôle. Plusieurs de ces activités sont décrites dans l’article, où est soulignée la possibilité de combiner les dimensions psychosociale et philosophique en intervention de groupe. La discussion fait néanmoins ressortir que le groupe SEMA ne correspond pas tout à fait aux caractéristiques d’un groupe d’éducation, ni à celles d’un groupe de délibération éthique ou de communauté de recherche philosophique. En fin de compte, l’approche d’intervention proposée et la vision du rôle de l’intervenant nous amènent à conclure que le groupe SEMA peut être désigné comme un groupe d’éducation philosophique ou « philo-éducatif ». This article presents the characteristics and program of an educational, innovative group who deals with caregivers. For a given period of 8-9 meetings of two hours each, the group’s goal is to heighten awareness of caregivers with regard to their moral experience when performing their role. Indeed, studies show that it is these daily, ethical dilemmas that contribute the most to their burden and that this experience can be very painful, morally, for some. Based on a theoretical model which includes seven processes dealing with the moral sense of responsibility that comes with being a caregiver, the activities proposed in the group allow an ethical reflection which gives new meaning to their role. Several of these activities are described in this article, putting an emphasis on the possibility of combining the psychosocial and philosophical dimensions in group interventions. However, the discussion shows that this group does not quite fit the characteristics of an education, or an ethical deliberation group, or a philosophical research community. Finally, the intervention approach adopted by? the stakeholder’s role in this particular group lead us to conclude that it can be referred to as a “philo-educational’ group
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".