MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Évaluation des objets connectés en santé. Les enjeux éthiques et philosophiques

2020· book-chapter· fr· W4210294995 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCNRS Éditions eBooks · 2020
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Labour, Employment and Social Solidarity
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Une évaluation peut répondre à au moins deux ordres de préoccupation : elle peut concerner l’efficacité ou bien la désirabilité. Il s’agit là de deux ordres qu’on ne peut confondre : l’ordre pragmatique, où l’on mesure l’adéquation des moyens aux fins poursuivies, et l’ordre axiologique, où l’on questionne l’idée du bien que l’on voudrait réaliser. À l’évidence, les objets connectés en santé conduisent à interroger l’un et l’autre de ces ordres : leur utilité en tant que dispositifs de santé,...

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)0.004
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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.145 · 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