Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’adoption de lignes directrices unifiées relatives à la recherche sur des êtres humains et la création de nouvelles structures de gestion de l’éthique de la recherche ont provoqué d’importants débats au sein de la communauté scientifique canadienne au cours des dernières années. Des conceptions fort différentes de l’éthique ont alors opposé les chercheurs des sciences biomédicales à leurs collègues des sciences humaines et sociales. Si la réaction défensive de ces derniers a réussi à infléchir la politique éthique interconseil, elle a toutefois fait obstacle à une réflexion sereine sur les enjeux éthiques de la recherche sur des êtres humains hors du domaine biomédical. Cet essai se veut une contribution à cette réflexion. Il examine certains des éléments constitutifs de l’éthique dans la pratique historienne et explore les enjeux éthiques des nouvelles conditions d’exercice du métier, de l’évolution récente de l’historiographie ainsi que des mutations du cadre juridique.
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".