MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3130681566 · doi:10.7202/1074678ar

De la « douleur totale » à la souffrance existentielle

2021· article· fr· W3130681566 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hubert Doucet

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySoulArtTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question de la sédation dite terminale pour cause de souffrance existentielle soulève de nombreux débats dans les milieux palliatifs. Pour éclairer ce débat, j’ai cherché à dégager l’orientation de ces discussions et à discerner ce qu’ils nous apprennent sur le rapport de la médecine à la souffrance des personnes en fin de vie. Ainsi, je me suis d’abord intéressé au vocabulaire. Par la suite, j’ai analysé le concept de douleur totale qu’avait élaboré Cicely Saunders, la fondatrice des soins palliatifs. Puis je me suis penché sur les raisons pour lesquelles ce concept ne semble plus répondre aux besoins actuels. Enfin, je propose quelques orientations de travail pour faire de la souffrance existentielle le coeur des soins de fin de vie.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.358 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207