Attention au chercheur ! L’éthique sous la menace de la recherche, la science sous l’emprise des comités d’éthique en recherche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article analyse les prémisses, les modalités d’action et le fonctionnement actuel des comités d’éthique en recherche (CÉR) comme étant basés sur une éthique procédurale dont l’adoption et l’application en tant que modèle sont hautement problématiques. D’une part, le chercheur est constitué en déviant potentiel, en être moralement suspect. D’autre part, la science étant désormais redéfinie en activité potentiellement dangereuse, les CÉR s’affairent à la contrôler et s’ingèrent ainsi dans la procédure scientifique. L’article conclut en proposant de penser l’éthique non pas comme un principe mesurable, vérifiable et maîtrisable, mais plutôt comme un point d’équilibre à atteindre entre les diverses parties concernées.
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 | 0.094 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".