Un terrain dans une association caritative marseillaise (France) à l’épreuve de l’éthique de la recherche (Canada). Éthique, méthodologie et responsabilité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article croise la nouvelle proposition de l’Énoncé de politique des trois conseils : éthique de la recherche avec des sujets humains, qui balise l’éthique de la recherche au Canada, avec une recherche ethnographique menée à Marseille (France), dans le but de soulever les limites du document lorsqu’on doit l’appliquer à ce type de recherche. Après avoir posé quelques constats de lecture sur cette proposition, l’article poursuivra une réflexion éthique et empirique sur la neutralité des chercheurs et la question récurrente des conflits d’intérêts sur le terrain. Au final, cet article tentera de replacer la responsabilité sociale du chercheur à l’intérieur même des débats sur l’éthique de la recherche.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".