MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323527743 · doi:10.7202/1097253ar

Attention, injustices épistémiques et humilité

2023· article· fr· W4323527743 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Bourgault

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEthics in medical practice
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article nous proposons de recadrer les débats sur les injustices épistémiques en réarticulant ceux-ci à l’aune des concepts d’attention et d’écoute – deux éléments clés de la justice épistémique selon Miranda Fricker (figure de proue de ce champ de recherche). Nous souhaitons offrir quelques correctifs et compléments aux travaux de Fricker à partir des écrits de Hans-Georg Gadamer, qui a résumé son herméneutique comme une affaire d’écoute attentive et dont l’ouvrage Philosophie de la santé est fort pertinent pour les réflexions contemporaines sur la justice épistémique en milieu clinique. Nous insistons sur l’importance de l’humilité, de la participation du patient, du temps et du contact ordinaire avec l’altérité.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.083
Scholarly communication0.0130.013
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.627
Teacher spread0.352 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicEthics in medical practiceFrench-language works237,207