L’impératif cosmique universel : l’apport du modèle de Roy au savoir infirmier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contemporary challenge in the field of health is undeniably that of devising a way to integrate humans and the environment that is beneficial to health. This article presents the universal cosmic imperative (UCI) philosophical perspective and the notion of the cosmic imperative that leads human beings to be creative in their relationship to nature. It begins by consolidating the exegesis of the internal evolution of Roy’s theory and identifying its influences. The epistemological and philosophical postulates upon which Roy’s theory was built are specified, and then the evolution of Roy’s thought is described in three main phases. The article then moves on to describe and explain the epistemological openings that Roy’s theory allows from the point of view of current health issues, especially environmental medicine, in a macro-meso-micro perspective of global health. Roy’s thinking is part of the question of the current turning point in the discipline of nursing (cure-care-healing) and the definition of its focus. Roy’s theory resists current theoretical developments, which it allows us to describe and question in a pattern that is fruitful for researchers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".