MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040177113 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.345

Pourquoi légiférer l’éthique ? Pour apaiser le public ou pour soutenir l’exercice d’une charge publique ?

2011· article· fr· W2040177113 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Claude Bisson

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tous s’entendent pour affirmer que les titulaires de charges publiques doivent se conformer à de hautes normes d’éthique et de déontologie dans l’exécution de leur mandat. Peut-on y parvenir sans que des prescriptions à ce sujet soient inscrites dans la législation ? La réponse suggérée est non, car seules des lois permettront au public de bien connaître les règles de conduite auxquelles doivent se conformer les titulaires de charges publiques. Pour ces derniers, la législation permet de fixer avec clarté et continuité les paramètres déontologiques à l’intérieur desquels ils doivent exercer leur mandat. Somme toute, il n’y a pas en ce domaine d’autre solution valable que la législation.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research 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 score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.009
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0090.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.011

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207