MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082260406 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v12i1.4837

Contribution des théories au développement des savoirs infirmiers : une analyse critique

2020· article· fr· W3082260406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Évy Nazon

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Nursing, Elderly Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesSociologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selon plusieurs chercheurs, les sciences infirmières devraient s’appuyer sur les théories infirmières pour développer des savoirs scientifiques. Le but de leur approche consiste à empêcher l’éclectisme et produire des savoirs propres à la discipline. Dès lors, ces théories deviennent un cadre incontournable permettant d’assurer la reconnaissance et la valorisation de la discipline. Dans cet article, nous voulons présenter, avec l’approche généalogique de Foucault, une analyse qui permet d’appréhender la production des savoirs issus des théories infirmières sous un regard plus critique tout en faisant ressortir leur dimension politique.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.038
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporiaSame topicHealth, Nursing, Elderly CareFrench-language works237,207