Recherche militaire dans les universités. Quelle est la place de l’éthique ? Le développement de technologies de l’armement à l’Université McGill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En principe, la recherche au sein de nos universités publiques s’effectue dans le but de servir les intérêts de la société. On retrouve pourtant de nombreux projets de recherche dont les applications peuvent porter atteinte à la vie humaine. C’est notamment le cas de la recherche en science et génie portant sur le développement de technologies de l’armement. La communauté universitaire doit-elle occuper un rôle dans l’encadrement éthique et transparent de ces recherches ? L’Université McGill est l’une des rares institutions au pays ayant adopté des critères d’encadrement basés sur leurs répercussions sociales, et elles est sur le point de les éliminer. Les pratiques de recherche de l’établissement font l’objet de vifs débats opposant, d’une part, des professeurs et étudiants revendiquant un plus grand encadrement et, d’autre part, la direction de l’établissement, qui s’oppose à cet encadrement au nom de la liberté universitaire.
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 | 0.048 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".