MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2992533760 · doi:10.3917/jibes.303.0135

Chapitre 8. Hommes ou robots dans l’espace. Approches éthique et juridique

2019· article· fr· W2992533760 on OpenAlex
Nathalie Nevejans

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal international de bioéthique et d'éthique des sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsPrivy Council Office
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanityRobotSpace (punctuation)Human beingSociologyComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Who of human or robot has its place in space? The robot, because it can replace human beings for exploration missions that are always particularly dangerous both for the health and the safety of astronauts. But human also tends to gain a place in space, when he can be assisted by the robot as a tool that facilitates his work, or when the machine can serve as a medium to extend humanity to the confines of the universe. All these hypotheses raise ethical and legal questions to which the article gives some solutions.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.282 · 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