MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chapitre 23. La restitution des résultats scientifiques dans les observatoires. Considérations éthiques des chercheurs face aux perceptions de la population

2018· book-chapter· fr· W3034082078 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Mondain

Bibliographic record

VenueIRD Éditions eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question de la restitution des résultats scientifiques dans les systèmes de surveillance démographique et de santé (SSDS), ou observatoires, latente depuis des décennies, s’est posée de manière plus explicite suite à l’atelier de Moundasso au Burkina Faso en 2006. Lors de cet atelier, l’accent a été mis sur le principe de justice et de bienfaisance de sorte que la restitution soit appréhendée comme un droit pour les populations à être informées sur ce que produit leur participation. En eff...

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0150.014
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRD Éditions eBooksSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207