Autonomie de l’infirmier anesthésiste : un processus réflexif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflexivity is a central process to the role of the nurse anaesthetist. Reflexivity enablesacquisition of knowledge, expertise and emancipation. The autonomy of the nurseanaesthetist, inherent to the practice, calls for clinical reasoning and the capacity forpersonal reflection in action. However, a paradoxical injunction between controlled autonomy, collaboration and cooperation with the anesthesiologist makes the reflexivity and autonomy conception in the practice of anesthesia poorly or not well defined. Similarly, the role of reflexivity in the development of autonomy is scarcely studied in the literature. The study aimed to question whether reflexivity was necessarily a tool for building the autonomy of the nurse anaesthetist.This qualitative phenomenological multicenter research was conducted throughcomprehensive interviews with six nurse anaesthetists. The results showed that autonomy varied according to the presence or absence of reflexivity in the care situation, particularly in the context of emergency. Reflexivity was notsystematically necessary for achieving autonomy in this context, since it involved reflexes and a prescription. Autonomy, when thought-provoking for the nurse anaesthetist, was embedded in leadership, understanding the anesthesia strategy, and positioning within the team and with the anesthesiologist. These were representations of the scope of practice for professionals. The study shedded light on the metaparadigm of the University of Montreal, highlighting reflexivity in the scope of autonomous practice of the nurse anaesthetist. It confirms the utility of reflective practice for building autonomy and competence, particularly when stepping out of the comfort zone in complex and urgent care situations. The study may be supplemented by an observational study or a narrative story.
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 | 0.034 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".