MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550808990 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2650

Éthique de la recherche : une responsabilité partagée

2000· article· fr· W2550808990 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Thérèse De Groote, Anne-Marie Monteith, Francis S. Rolleston

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPolitical scienceSociologyEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1998, les trois principaux conseils subventionnaires du Canada adoptaient l’Énoncé de politique des trois Conseils : Éthique de la recherche avec des êtres humains, dans le but de sensibiliser et de responsabiliser davantage les chercheurs aux questions de l’éthique de la recherche, de mieux protéger les participants de la recherche et d’harmoniser les procédures d’évaluation éthique de la recherche par les comités d’éthique. L’éthique de la recherche repose sur une responsabilité partagée entre les conseils, les chercheurs, les comités d’éthique, les institutions et les participants afin de garantir le respect de la dignité humaine en recherche sur des êtres humains. L’Énoncé de politique est un document vivant et évolutif, établissant des principes directeurs et des procédures pour l’évaluation. Il cherche à promouvoir la réflexion sur les questions éthiques tout en préconisant flexibilité et consensus ainsi que le respect des diverses disciplines, leurs traditions et leurs méthodologies et pratiques.

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)0.204
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.404
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2040.404
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0190.082
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.006

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 head0.213
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207