MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315151881 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2021

Éthique du consentement à l’ère des réseaux d’information en matière de santé

2004· article· fr· W2315151881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Boudreau, Monica Tremblay, Bernard Duval, Nicole Boulianne

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceMedicineGynecologyHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Un consentement de portée générale qui permettrait aux professionnels de la santé d’accéder à l’ensemble des dossiers cliniques en réseau est insuffisant pour mettre en confiance le patient. Dans un contexte de dossiers cliniques interconnectés, le consentement du patient doit être vu comme un mécanisme flexible pouvant être modulé selon la sensibilité des renseignements et les circonstances d’utilisation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.119
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.162
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1190.162
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.026
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0110.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.327 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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