Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intégrer les théories et modèles issus des sciences infirmières à la pratique des consultations infirmières constitue une perspective alléchante, à la fois pour la discipline et pour la qualité du service infirmier auprès des patients vus en consultation. Dans le domaine de l’onco-hématologie, des consultations infirmières se développent pour accompagner les patients et leur entourage face à la gravité de l’annonce et dans le cadre du suivi du parcours de soins. La visée de l’article est de guider les infirmières dans le développement ou le renforcement de leur approche clinique lors des consultations d’accompagnement en onco-hématologie. Il propose une structuration de repères théorico-cliniques pour éclairer leur pratique et agir de manière adaptée face à la complexité des situations de santé des bénéficiaires de soins. Cette structure théorico-clinique proposée s’appuie sur deux théories en sciences infirmières : l’Humaindevenant de Parse et l’Incertitude perçue dans la maladie de Mishel.
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 | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.641 | 0.391 |
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".