Quelle recherche, quelle évaluation ? Le cas de la distinction entre soin expérimental et soin innovateur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La recherche universitaire doit plus que jamais composer avec les intérêts d’un nombre croissant de partenaires. Le cas de la distinction entre soin expérimental et soin innovateur souligne l’importance de l’éthique de la recherche en tant que responsabilité partagée ; cela exige de repenser la frontière entre la pratique clinique et l’expérimentation sur l’humain. Or, définir ce qu’est une « nouvelle pratique » n’est pas chose simple. Selon quels critères – et ceux de qui, au nom de quoi ? – juge-t-on qu’une modification apportée à une pratique reconnue est suffisamment importante pour constituer de la recherche ? Du bilan de la situation actuelle en France et au Canada, la présente étude entend faciliter le dialogue entre ceux qui ont à gérer ensemble cette responsabilité, soit le chercheur et le clinicien, l’institution où s’effectue leurs travaux ou celle qui les approuve, l’organisme privé ou public qui les finance, ainsi que les ministères et organismes professionnels concernés.
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 | 0.240 | 0.222 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".