MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2044423397 · doi:10.7202/015649ar

L'inhumanité de la bioéthique dans l'espace public français

2003· article· fr· W2044423397 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Francis Zimmermann

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ L'inhumanité de la bioéthique dans l'espace public français La bioéthique est née en France au tournant des années quatre-vingt. Les Avis du Comité Consultatif National d'Éthique publiés à partir de 1984 et les lois dites de bioéthique promulguées en 1994 en constituent le noyau théorique. Un anthropologue s'efforce dans cet article de repérer les différentes orientations intellectuelles qui se croisent dans ce corpus de textes normatifs, d'en caractériser le style et d'en contextualiser la lecture en travaillant sur deux registres : la généalogie des concepts dans la tradition philosophique et les faits significatifs dans l'histoire récente des institutions médicales et de la sensibilité collective. Cette lecture critique fait ressortir l'influence du positivisme dans la bioéthique à la française, la primauté des questions de téléologie - le respect de la vie, l'avenir de l'espèce humaine et la désaffection, jusqu'à une date très récente, pour toute approche mettant en jeu la subjectivité et la sensibilité des personnes. Mots clés : Zimmermann, bioéthique, corps humain, droit naturel, positivisme, France

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.033
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.310
GPT teacher head0.652
Teacher spread0.342 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et Sociétés→Same topicEthics in medical practice→French-language works237,207→