L'imaginaire éthique des répondants du réseau gouvernemental québécois en matière d‘éthique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Existe‐t‐il des dispositifs en éthique gouvernementale qui ne relèvent pas de la logique propre à la déontologie, comme c'est la tendance chez les pays membres de I'ocde? Dans le cadre d'une recherche financée par le secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor du gouvernement du Québec, il nous a été possible d'explorer un dispositif appelé« Réseau des répondants en éthique ». À I'analyse des réponses obtenues lors d'une enquête de type terrain, nous avons constaté qu'il y avait concordance entre la définition que les répondants donnaient de l'éthique (conception très majoritairement auto‐régulationniste) et la perception qu'ils avaient du rôle qu'ils devaient jouer. Nous avons aussi fait la démonstration qu'il y a une rupture dans l'imaginaire éthique des répondants par rapport à la tendance hétéro‐régulationniste. Une des causes de ce changement de mentalité proviendrait du fait que les consultants en éthique du Québec ont adopté un modèle de réflexion éthique faisant bien la distinction entre l'éthique et la déontologie. Abstract: Countries of the oecd have established “codes of conduct” for public servants. Do these codes have a determining effect on how ethics are applied? Our research project, funded by the Secretariat du Conseil du Tresor of the Government of Quebec, allowed us to explore what is called the Réseau des répondants en éthique, a network of ethics consultants. When we analysed field survey responses, we found a parallel between the ways the network respondents defined ethics (a primarily self‐regulated conception) and how they perceived the roles they were expected to play. We also found that there is a disjunction between the respondents' perception of ethics and the trend of regulation‐by‐others. One of the causes of this change in mentality would appear to be that Quebec's ethics consultants have adopted an ethical reflection model that distinguishes between ethics and codes of conduct.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".