MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977077949 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.4429

Le rôle de l’éthique dans la mise en place d’une certification pour l’utilisation d’algorithmes dans le système juridique

2019· article· fr· W2977077949 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emilie Guiraud

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEthics and Social Impacts of AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyHumanitiesPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En règle générale, la prise de décision algorithmique peut influencer les individus sur plusieurs points. Tout d’abord, une problématique de transparence se pose, mais également de contrôle, dans la mesure où l’apprentissage machine lié à la puissance de calcul complexifient la compréhension du processus de raisonnement ayant mené à une décision. De la même manière, cela empêche l’identification et la résolution de potentiels problèmes éthiques liés à la conception et au fonctionnement de l’algorithme. À ce titre émergent des réflexions portant sur la mise en place d’une charte éthique, mais également d’une certification. La certification n’étant pas obligatoire, per se, nous verrons comment l’éthique pourrait compléter le rôle du droit en permettant de l’encourager.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicEthics and Social Impacts of AIFrench-language works237,207