MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108209388 · doi:10.4000/1597v

La divulgation en santé comme technique de soi : les infirmières lanceuses d’alerte au prisme de la pensée de Michel Foucault

2025· article· W7108209388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)Context (archaeology)Michel foucault

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En santé, les alertes éthiques visent à signaler des risques possibles ou des situations avérées minant la sécurité ou les droits des patients et du personnel, permettant ainsi aux établissements de prévenir ou corriger des situations contraires à leur mandat. Pour les lanceurs d’alerte toutefois, elles prennent un sens plus profond. En nous basant sur des récits de divulgateurs infirmiers recueillis dans le cadre d’une étude qualitative, nous suggérons que les alertes éthiques reflètent les techniques de soi décrites par Michel Foucault : en mobilisant soi-même et les autres dans leurs démarches, les lanceurs d’alerte s’imposent des conduites motivées par un souci de vérité et d’authenticité. Leur expérience provoque des états successifs de validation et de dissonance, culminant dans des sentiments profonds de cohérence ou de fracture identitaire. Ces aboutissements ont des effets durables sur leur sentiment de soi et leur relation avec les autres et leur profession, (re)définissant leurs sentiments de loyauté et leur disposition à lancer l’alerte dans le futur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.053
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207