La dignité… Et puis, après ? : Care of the older person and the value of human dignity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce J’ai lu présente le résumé de ce texte : Pageau, F., Fiasse, G., Nordenfelt, L. et Mihailov, E. (2023). Care of the older person and the value of human dignity. Bioethics, 38(1), 44-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13251. Alors que la population mondiale vieillit rapidement, les parties prenantes doivent aborder la question des soins aux personnes âgées avec une grande préoccupation. De plus, la perte de dignité est souvent associée au vieillissement en raison de la démence, des problèmes de mobilité et d'une autonomie fonctionnelle réduite. Cependant, la dignité est un terme polysémique jugé inutile par certains éthiciens. Pour contrer cette affirmation, nous proposons quatre concepts pour mieux la définir et utiliser cette notion de manière précise. Il s'agit de la dignité humaine, de la dignité de l'identité, des dignités d'excellence et des dignités attribuées. Enfin, nous expliquons l'importance de la sollicitude et de la dignité humaine dans les soins aux personnes âgées. Cela garantira le respect, l'amitié et la dignité des personnes âgées dans la fourniture de soins éthiques gériatriques.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".