MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2555692537 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2660

Et si toutes ces règles incitaient à la fraude...

2000· article· fr· W2555692537 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Guy Bourgeault

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2000
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outre que les règles d’éthique de la recherche proposées, édictées par les grands organismes subventionnaires canadiens éludent des enjeux d’importance majeure, règles et procédures de ces mêmes organismes touchant la présentation des demandes et leur étude, puis l’allocation des subventions, incitent à la fraude ou du moins à l’entorse, et parfois à l’iniquité. L’auteur présente diverses illustrations de cette (anti)thèse, avant de faire appel à son tour, mais sur un autre registre, à la responsabilité des chercheurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.019
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0100.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.344 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique Publique→Same topicEthics in Clinical Research→French-language works237,207→