Chapitre 7. La formation éthique continue : de l'éthique clinique à l'éthique institutionnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The mandate of the Ethics Committee of the Conseil de médecins, dentistes et pharmaciens (CMDP) at the Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), Sherbrooke, Quebec is three-fold: to guide the clinical decision; to address the institutional ethical function; to create the program for continuing education in ethics (Formation éthique continue or FEC). Might FEC be the means of bridging from individual ethics to institutional ethics at a hospital? AIM: To take the FEC perspectives considered appropriate for doctors and consider them for validation or disproving in the context of those of other professionals. PROPOSED METHOD: Situate the proposed FEC mandate in a reference framework to evaluate (or triangulate) the clinical decision and the institutional ethic. CONVICTION: Sustainable professional development for doctors (DPD) includes ethics; it cannot be ignored. Without constant attention to upgrading one's abilities in professional ethics, these suffer the same fate as other professional aptitudes and competences (for example, techniques and scientific knowledge): decay.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.003 |
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".