Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les nombreuses enquêtes portant sur la population de plusieurs pays industrialisés incluant le Canada indiquent que de plus en plus, dans le contexte des rencontres médecin-patient, les patients désirent participer activement aux décisions portant sur leur santé. Toutefois, ces enquêtes rapportent aussi que ce partage de la décision entre les patients et les médecins n’a pas préséance. Le présent texte donne les raisons expliquant l’intérêt de la population et des décideurs envers la prise de décision partagée. Il introduit les fondements conceptuels de la prise de décision partagée et fait état de quelques travaux empiriques dans ce domaine. À l’aide de données recueillies lors d’une étude descriptive des pratiques médicales en matière de dépistage prénatal du syndrome de Down, il discute la relation médecin-patiente lors de ces rencontres. Enfin, il propose quelques pistes de réflexion pour des recherches futures.
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 | 0.016 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".