MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019704406 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1435

Dignité et indignité de l’hébergement institutionnel

2008· article· fr· W2019704406 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michèle Clément, Éric Gagnon, Marie-Hélène Deshaies

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Après avoir intégré le droit positif des États, la dignité humaine occupe désormais une place centrale dans les débats éthiques touchant la santé et le corps. Elle se pose avec plus d’intensité encore lorsqu’il est question des personnes âgées en perte d’autonomie vivant en hébergement de longue durée. Bien qu’elle soit présente dans de nombreux textes de lois et codes de déontologie, la notion de dignité ne fait cependant pas consensus. Le sens qui lui est attribué n’est jamais entièrement donné et définitif : il dépend du contexte dans lequel l’enjeu de dignité est posé. À partir de contributions théoriques et empiriques, les auteurs tentent ici de cerner le sens que l’on donne à la dignité dans les milieux d’hébergement pour personnes âgées.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207