Enjeux expérientiels de l'utilisation de l'IA en anatomopathologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’appuie sur une recherche menée au sein d’un cabinet médical d’anatomo-cytopathologie et porte sur les transformations du travail d’analyse diagnostique du tissu prostatique dans un contexte d’intégration d’un logiciel d’accompagnement au diagnostic basé sur une intelligence artificielle (IA). Des chercheurs en sciences de l’information et de la communication se sont intéressés à l’expérience vécue par un public de huit médecins de ce cabinet médical lors de la phase de test du logiciel d’IA, c’est-à-dire au sens subjectif que ces individus attribuent à leurs activités dans une perspective critique d’émancipation (comme augmenter ses savoirs et savoir-faire) versus aliénation (diminution des savoirs et savoir-faire par rationalisation technique) dans le cadre d’un changement de leurs habitudes de travail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".