Évolution de la dimension scientifique de la discipline infirmière : quelques repères
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire de la discipline infirmière démontre des efforts progressifs en vue de développer du savoir infirmier. Cet article cible la science infirmière en postulant qu’il s’agit d’une partie de la discipline infirmière et d’une partie du savoir de la discipline. Dans ce contexte, une attention particulière est portée aux théories en tant que produit de la science et elles seront situées dans l’avancement de la science infirmière. L’examen de la science infirmière et de son évolution s’inspire de deux visions de la structure du savoir de la discipline infirmière. L’étude de l’évolution de la discipline sur le plan scientifique est abordée en trois périodes. Cet examen est complété par les propositions de deux métathéoriciens se préoccupant des théories dans l’avancement du savoir. En conclusion, au-delà des différences de propositions au sujet du savoir scientifique et de son évolution, on voit qu’une structure du savoir joue un rôle durable.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".