MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2215099709 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1824

Toxine botulique dans le traitement de l’infirmité motrice cérébrale (IMC). De l’injustice à l’éthique

2006· article· fr· W2215099709 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
I. Hodgkinson, Carole Vuillerot, Cécile Holenweg, J P Vadot

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On dispose d’un nouveau traitement pour aider les enfants qui souffrent d’une infirmité motrice cérébrale : la toxine botulique, une thérapeutique innovante et coûteuse. Seul un nombre limité d’enfants IMC pourront en bénéficier alors qu’elle serait théoriquement indiquée pour la plupart d’entre eux. Cet article, qui va au-delà de la discussion éthique de justice distributive, réfléchit à l’objectif de ce traitement pour cerner les enfants qui devraient en bénéficier en priorité. La réflexion conduit à penser que le bénéfice fonctionnel des enfants n’est pas ce qui prévaudrait pour son obtention, comme on aurait pu le croire spontanément. Au contraire, les contraintes psychiques et physiques liées à ce traitement pourraient diminuer sérieusement leur qualité de vie, ce qui irait à l’inverse de l’objectif premier.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0070.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207