l’alchimie du dialogue, de la délibération, et des décisions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes research that explores how counsellors cope with ethically challenging situations, which are referred to in this report as Ethical Discernment Points (EDPs). We explore how counsellors navigate and make choices about these EDPs, and the degree to which dialogue and conversation with others is part of their discernment process. In this qualitative study, counsellors from across Canada responded to an online ethical scenario that contained several EDPs. Several themes are identified in the analysis that allow us to describe a process employed by counsellors in their ethical decision making. Dialogue is identified as part of the process, but it is not as prevalent as predicted. We conclude that counsellors include dialogue or talking to others as one step in ethical decision making rather than it being the main component of the process. We present some recommenda-tions for ethics education and counselling practice. résumé Cet article décrit de la recherche qui explore comment les conseillers font face à des situations éthiquement difficiles, lesquelles sont appelées « points de discernement éthi-
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it