Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plusieurs balises juridiques agissent en périphérie de la pratique infirmière en contexte médico-légal. Ces dernières créent différentes obligations professionnelles et sont susceptibles de porter atteinte aux droits des usagers. Elles questionnent de ce fait les principes d’advocacy et de justice sociale fondamentaux à la profession. Si certaines approches méthodologiques permettent d’informer le domaine du droit de faits sociaux, les approches permettant d’étudier l’influence des normes juridiques sur la pratique professionnelle sont plus rares. Cet article a pour but de discuter de la pertinence de l’analyse sociojuridique pour le développement de savoirs en soins infirmiers médico-légaux. Il suggère un cadre d’analyse pertinent afin d’étudier les transactions s’opérant entre les domaines cliniques et juridiques. Cette méthodologie étant intimement liée à la défense des intérêts et des usagers et à la lutte contre les processus de discrimination et de marginalisation, ses affinités au paradigme des théories critiques sont également discutées.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".