La surveillance des personnes atteintes de démence par les appareils équipés de la technologie GPS et l'utilisation des « mesures les moins contraignantes »: Une interrogation sur le plan juridique et éthique (Monitoring of Persons with Dementia by Devices with GPS Technology and the Use of 'Least Restrictive Measures': A Legally and Ethically Interrogation)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: « Ce qui a ete presente comme une occasion d’accorder davantage de liberte ne doit pas degenerer en un deni de la dignite et des droits humains fondamentaux » [notre traduction]1.On a assiste a un mouvement regulier de reconnaissance des mecanismes de protection des droits de la personne en faveur des populations vulnerables, et en particulier des personnes âgees. Bien que les formes les plus manifestes de mauvais traitements fassent l’objet d’une surveillance accrue, il n’en reste pas moins que l’on s’en est tenu a une vision plutot etroite dans la mesure ou ce sont uniquement les mauvais traitements flagrants survenus en milieu familial ou en institution qui ont ete cibles. Et pourtant, une forme beaucoup plus pernicieuse de mepris a l’egard des droits fondamentaux pourrait relever des nouvelles technologies, et de leur application a la population vieillissante et aux patients atteints de demence, en particulier. Trop souvent, semble-t-il, nous tenons pour acquises les limites imposees a la liberte et la dignite des personnes atteintes de demence comme une consequence naturelle inevitable de la degenerescence de leur sante et de notre desir bien intentionne, quoique paternaliste, d’assurer leur bien-etre medical. Aussi, il ne faut pas s’etonner que cela soit encore plus vrai en ce qui a trait aux technologies d’assistance que l’on a tendance, comme leur nom l’indique, a juger inoffensives.1. S Welsh et al, « Big Brother Is Watching You: The Ethical Implications of Electronic Surveillance Measures in the Elderly with Dementia and in Adults with Learning Difficulties » (2003) 7:5 Aging & Mental Health 372 a la p 374.English Abstract: “What is heralded as an opportunity for increased liberty must not degenerate into the denial of basic human rights and dignity.1”There has been a steady movement towards the recognition of human rights protection mechanisms for vulnerable populations, particularly older adults. While the most obvious forms of abuse have increasingly become the object of greater scrutiny, the focus has nevertheless been rather narrow, addressing only the most apparent manners of domestic or institutional maltreatment. A far more subtle form of potential disregard for basic rights relates to new technologies, and their application to the ageing population and dementia patients more specifically. Too often, it appears, we take the limitations imposed on the liberty and dignity of those with dementia for granted, as a presumed natural consequence of their degenerating health and our well-intentioned but paternalistic desire to ensure their medical well-being. Not surprisingly, perhaps, this is all the more true in relation to assistive technologies, which, as their name suggests, tend to be judged innocuous.1. S Welsh et al, « Big Brother Is Watching You: The Ethical Implications of Electronic Surveillance Measures in the Elderly with Dementia and in Adults with Learning Difficulties » (2003) 7:5 Aging & Mental Health 372 at p 374.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".