LA BIOÉTHIQUE ET LES DROITS FONDAMENTAUX: CONVERGENCES ET DIVERGENCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les charles des droits, notamment la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et la Charte des droits et libertés de la personne du Québec, ainsi que d’ autres textes législatifs, consacrent désormais dans le droit positif les grands principes éthiques que sont le respect de la personne, de son inviolabilité, de son autonomie, de sa vie privée notamment. Elles manquent un progrès indéniabie dans la reconnaissance de la dignité de tout être humain et donnent à individu des moyens directs de demander réparation en cas d’atteinte à ses droits fondamentaux. Cependant, la revendication de tels droits petut être détournée de ses fins à partir du moment ou l’individu prétend les exercer sans égard à son appartenance à la communauté et donc aux droits et libertés d’autrui et au bien-être général. La bioéthique elle-même risque, si l’ on n’y prend garde, de se voir confisquée au profit d’intérêts particuliers et mercantiles. De tels détournements sont susceptibles, ultimement, de porter atteinte à la dignité même de l’humanité.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".