Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pratique réflexive est une phase non linéaire incontournable de la démarche de soin qui fait appel à différents savoirs. Les étudiantes en sciences infirmières sont encouragées à y recourir afin de dispenser de soins de qualité aux patients, à leur famille et à la population. Toutefois, cette pratique devrait être considérée dans son contexte sociopolitique afin de prendre en compte les mécanismes de pouvoir ainsi que son potentiel d’assujettissement des corps des infirmières. Une analyse critique foucaldienne du concept de pratique réflexive permet de rendre visible des théories et pratiques pédagogiques assujettissantes lorsque l’aveu est privilégié au détriment d’une réflexion critique essentielle à la pratique infirmière. Elle interroge l’assujettissement des femmes au travers de modèles théoriques valorisant le ressenti aux dépends de d’autres types de savoirs. Le concept de pratique réflexive comporte un paradoxe : il appelle à la critique et à la libération, mais contient également des potentiels assujettissants.
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 | 0.052 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".