MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366113998 · doi:10.7202/1098553ar

De la pudeur dans les soins

2023· article· fr· W4366113998 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Bioethics · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleUniversité LavalCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services Sociaux
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Omniprésente dans les soins de santé, particulièrement ceux s’adressant à des personnes très dépendantes et impliquant une importante intrusion dans leur intimité, la pudeur est cependant encore peu discutée en éthique des soins. Cet article présente une exploration conceptuelle de la notion de pudeur et de ses manifestations dans les soins de santé, plus précisément de leur dimension morale et des défis qu’elles posent pour les institutions de soins. Puisque la pudeur invite à la protection de l’intégrité, de la dignité et à l’atténuation de la vulnérabilité de la personne soignée, elle nous semble porteuse d’une visée morale, et donc mériter non seulement plus d’attention de la part de l’éthique des soins, mais peut-être même d’y être introduite à titre de vertu.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.308 · 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