Enjeux épistémologiques et éthiques d’une recherche qualitative pluridisciplinaire sur les « demandes d’euthanasie » formulées auprès des professionnels de la santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, les demandes d’euthanasie formulées par des personnes atteintes de maladies graves ou leur entourage seront étudiées au travers d’une recherche qualitative. L’auteure, sociologue, qui a réalisé cette recherche avec des médecins, exposera le choix de recueillir les paroles des professionnels de la santé sur les demandes d’euthanasie qui ont été adressées à leur égard. Ainsi, le contexte socioculturel de cette recherche française sera tout d’abord évoqué. Ensuite, en raison de la singularité de cet objet de recherche « sensible », la méthodologie sera développée afin de comprendre la pertinence d’une recherche qualitative et pluridisciplinaire. Enfin, à partir des propos des professionnels qui exercent dans des institutions de soins et la nature des demandes d’euthanasie rapportées, la souffrance des malades et des professionnels sera interrogée.
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 | 0.210 | 0.188 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".