Chapitre 1. Au-delà des critiques adressées aux Comités d'éthique de la recherche : un choix de gouvernance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998 in Canada and Quebec, two policies regarding research ethics transformed the evaluation approach of clinical research following the Code of Nuremberg and subsequent Declarations of the World Medical Association. Even after almost ten years of implementation, these policies still arouse debate in the research milieu. If for many, these debates essentially reflect the inherent difficulties in any implementation process, in which resistance to change and the modification of policies and action plans, we believe that there is a more fundamental stake, rarely mentioned or debated, that of the choice of governance. In this article we start by proposing a classification of the different modes of governance: professional deontology, and ethical and administrative rights. Secondly, we show how the debates and criticisms addressed to the Research Ethics Committee of Quebec and Canada attains their full meaning in light of this basic stake: the divergence of the mode of governance to favour ethics in research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".