(Re)construction identitaire et pratique infirmière en psychiatrie légale : réflexion critique sur les commissions d’examen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction : The caritative impact of nursing care provided in forensic mental health settings is rarely questioned.Context : Caritative nursing care is indirectly regulated by the Review Board (RB), a para-judicial court which ensures public safety.Objective : This study presents a critical reflection on the political and social effects of the RB, forensic psychiatry hospitals and practices of forensic mental health nurses.Method : The reflection is centered on the concepts of biopower, degradation ceremonies, moral career and identity (re)construction.Results : ‘Therapeutic’ nursing practices are useful for disciplinary purposes in the forensic psychiatric hospital, insofar as they permit the identification and management of dangerous persons. However, the practices also fall within the biopolitical scope of the RB, since they assist the latter in ensuring public safety.Discussion : The forensic psychiatric environment can prove problematic for nurses, requiring a double allegiance, whereby their responsibilities to patients (consent and confidentiality) and to the institution (protection of the public) can lead to tension.Conclusion : The analytical framework of the study allows for a reassessment of other presumed processes in psychiatric environments, which nonetheless constitute just as many rituals of identity (re)construction.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".