Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is inmportant to emphasize three aspects concerning the construction and teaching of 'French bioethics: the maintenance and promotion ofa multidisciplinary approach; a greater autonomy in the management and development of training programs; positioning a power of attraction and development in French-speaking countries. Bioethics is defined as a field of interdisciplinary studies at the junction of the health sciences and the humanities and, more importantly, directly connected to the reality of the health community, research and public Policy. A greater autonomy in the management and development of training programs is also capital. The danger of being dominated by one discipline involved whether medicine, law, philosophy, theology is real and prevents from promoting methodological approaches that are both theoretical and empirical. Finally, compliance with local and national, but also disciplinary diversity is essential to the construction and teaching of French bioethics. As such, the University of Montreal has positioned itself as a leader in the French-speaking countries: at the junction of North America and European countries, Quebec has developed its own specificity in bioethics, which is a force of attraction for many countries of the French-speaking world. In this context, the Bioethics Programs at the University of Montreal rely heavily on knowledge transfer to other cultures. Moreover, the internationalization of training programs in French bioethics is a major issue in the current context of globalization and transmission of knowledge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".