MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2893902435 · doi:10.7202/1051282ar

Bientraitance et prise en compte de la vulnérabilité

2017· article· fr· W2893902435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annie Hourcade Sciou

Bibliographic record

VenueLes ateliers de l éthique · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude entend montrer que la bientraitance correspond à une démarche volontaire d’assumer notre responsabilité vis-à-vis de la vulnérabilité de l’autre et en constitue la réponse la plus adaptée. La vulnérabilité, en effet, revêt une dimension essentiellement relationnelle et non substantielle. Comme en témoigne l’étymologie du terme, être vulnérable, c’est être susceptible d’être blessé, à la différence de la fragilité, qui, pour sa part, correspond à une faiblesse intrinsèque. La vulnérabilité, dans sa dimension relationnelle, peut être rapprochée de la dépendance. En ce sens, plus que la bienfaisance qui s’inscrit dans une visée téléologique, celle qui consiste à produire le bien de l’autre, la bientraitance porte sur la manière d’agir sur l’autre en situation de vulnérabilité, sur la nature même de la relation dont nous sommes directement parties prenantes.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes ateliers de l éthiqueSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207