L’appropriation par certaines théoriciennes de la discipline infirmière du savoir sur les systèmes complexes : un enjeu disciplinaire méconnu
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The way of approaching knowledge construction in our discipline often involves reflection on paradigms such as reaction, reciprocal interaction, or simultaneous action. There is a belief in our discipline that complexity science or complex systems can only be approached by drawing on postmodern epistemology and simultaneous action. It therefore seemed interesting to reflect on complexity in nursing by taking as a starting point the reflection on complex thinking, on complex systems in the social sciences and in philosophy. Indeed, these invite us not to take a position at the ontological level, and to approach complexity from a radical constructivism perspective rather than one of phenomenological constructivism, which takes a position at the ontological level. This reflection is split into two distinct parts. In the first part, we trace the most important points of the work on complexity in the social sciences. In the second part, we question the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying the understanding of complexity in the nursing discipline.
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 | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".