Activités et compétences liées à la fonction de l'assistante infirmière-chef (AIC) en milieu hospitalier : une étude descriptive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problématique: Les assistantes infirmières-chefs occupent une fonction de premier plan. Cette fonction est peu considérée et les AIC ont peu retenu l’attention des chercheurs. Questions : Quelles sont les activités faciles et difficiles et les compétences? Comment se vit l’entrée en emploi des AIC d’un milieu hospitalier québécois? Méthode : L’approche qualitative de type descriptif utilisant l’entrevue semi-dirigée. Six AIC et trois CUSI composent notre échantillon. Résultats : Les activités liées au travail clinique et à la communication ressortent comme plus faciles et les activités liées à la gestion plus difficiles. Les compétences identifiées sont : leadership, compétences techniques et cliniques, relations interpersonnelles, planification et organisation, capacité à déléguer et pensée critique. Leur entrée en emploi ne se vit pas sans heurt. Conclusion : Une image empreinte de reconnaissance est issue de la recherche, celle de « HÉROS » au sein du réseau de la santé.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".