Le « clic-clac » éthique : quand le son de l’appareil photo soutient le consentement itératif dans les démarches d’enquêtes visuelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La réalisation de photographies dans le cadre d’un terrain convoque des questions éthiques et légales, articulant consentement et droit à l’image, que les sociologues n’ont pas l’habitude de manier. En portant l’attention sur un aspect technique a priori anodin, le son produit par un appareil photo reflex numérique (autofocus et obturateur), l’article explore ce qui se joue autour de la prise de vue, du point de vue éthique. En effet, l’information perceptive que constitue ce son peut souligner, de façon très concrète, la perturbation que constitue l’enquête, tout comme elle peut ouvrir la voie à la renégociation du consentement à la prise d’image, sous forme de réticence ou de refus ponctuel. Ces questions seront examinées à l’aide de deux enquêtes adoptant des méthodes visuelles menées en Suisse romande, l’une portant sur le vieillissement en couvent et l’autre sur le vieillissement en prison.
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 | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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; 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".