Chapitre 6. Des éthiques collectives à une gestion adaptative des conflits organisationnels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of collaborative governance is gaining popularity. However, how can it be truly collaborative? Decision-making systems with diverse stakeholders must deal with different positions, roles, interests, missions, observations, and values. The co P·R·I·M·O·V (Position, Role, Interest, Mission, Observation, Values) bioethics tool aims to improve the practice of sustainable, collaborative, and democratic development of technosocial initiatives through its user-friendly format for professional ethicists. The tool follows the logic of Conflict of Interest (CoI) analysis used in organizational ethics frameworks. CoI, as an analytical unit in ethics, allows the anticipation and management of problems that may compromise the short- and long-term activities of a program and its governance. This tool was built on a case study for the implementation of monitoring of antibiotic use in animal health in Quebec, Canada. The use of this bioethics tool is strategic and can help negotiate positions and thus co-construct a common frame of reference between the stakeholders in view of a collaborative governance favoring cooperation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".