MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064150858 · doi:10.3917/aatc.149.0029

L'art de faire attention à la marche : le défi éthique d'un conseiller

2015· article· fr· W2064150858 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie Monin

Bibliographic record

VenueActualités en analyse transactionnelle/Actualités en analyse transactionnelle · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsPrivy Council Office
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPerspective (graphical)SociologyPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article propose une discussion, selon une perspective de conseil, à partir de l’article « Faire attention à la marche : considérations éthiques sur l’engagement thérapeutique » de Sue Eusden (2014). L’auteur commente les différents niveaux et limites auxquels les conseillers doivent faire attention à la marche, la nécessité de prendre des risques et comment l’art de faire attention à la marche constitue une mise en acte éthique.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActualités en analyse transactionnelle/Actualités en analyse transactionnelleSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207