Éléments d’intégrité scientifique à considérer pour limiter les manquements dans la recherche en psychologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La notion de consentement interpelle l’opinion publique, le corps médical, les tribunaux, et les chercheurs tentent d’en discerner les contours, le domaine de la recherche n’en étant pas exclu. En psychologie, les études explorent le fonctionnement de l’être humain et ne peuvent être effectuées sans le consentement du participant. Qu’elle soit conduite sur la population générale ou sur des personnes atteintes de troubles spécifiques, la recherche en psychologie doit intégrer la participation de personnes qui sont explicitement consentantes. Nous explorerons, dans cette revue, les spécificités et les obstacles du recrutement impliquant un consentement libre et éclairé en psychologie. Nous aborderons ensuite les éléments d’intégrité scientifique à considérer, afin de limiter les possibles inconduites scientifiques.
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 | 0.373 | 0.428 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".