MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2554852478 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2671

L’éthique en amont, dans le cours et en aval de toute recherche. Échos à une recherche sur les personnes séropositives

2000· article· fr· W2554852478 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Marc Larouche

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Évoquer l’éthique d’une quelconque pratique ou activité sociale, c’est consentir à reconnaître les acteurs sociaux comme des sujets éthiques et la pratique sociale comme un lieu de l’interaction morale. L’éthique de la recherche sur des sujets humains n’y échappe pas : les chercheurs sont aussi des sujets éthiques et leurs activités de recherche des lieux où l’éthique est en jeu tant en son amont, qu’en son cours et qu’en son aval. Ce texte explicite et illustre cette position à partir d’une recherche réalisée au Centre d’études sociologiques des facultés universitaires Saint-Louis (Bruxelles, Belgique) sur les personnes séropositives.

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)0.072
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0720.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0110.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207