MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162097743 · doi:10.3917/rsi.144.0064

L’impératif cosmique universel : l’apport du modèle de Roy au savoir infirmier

2021· article· fr· W3162097743 on OpenAlexaff
Carole Délétroz, Charlotte Gilart de Keranflec’h, Clémence Dallaire

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherche en soins infirmiers · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyPerspective (graphical)ExegesisPhilosophyField (mathematics)Point (geometry)Focus (optics)SociologyHumanitiesComputer sciencePhysicsTheologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.146
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.146
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0090.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.474
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.028 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherche en soins infirmiersSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207