Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les soignants reçoivent de la société la mission d’exercer leurs activités dans le seul intérêt de la santé des patients. Cette visée éthique implique des engagements précis des professionnels, des citoyens et des autorités sanitaires, en particulier concernant la recherche de l’indépendance vis-à-vis d’intérêts autres que ceux des patients. Les professionnels de santé sont de plus en plus au centre de multiples conflits d’intérêts compte tenu des enjeux économiques, financiers et politiques qui se cristallisent autour de la santé. Le collectif Formindep tente en France de combattre les influences qui altèrent parfois gravement la qualité de la formation des professionnels et de l’information des patients. Il veut également favoriser l’élaboration et l’utilisation des moyens permettant aux professionnels, accompagnés par les patients, de résister à ces influences. Il soutient que cette attitude de résistance éthique relève des compétences nécessaires à une pratique professionnelle de qualité.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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.
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".