MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7108207508 · doi:10.4000/15981

Considérations éthiques liées à l’immortalité artificielle : quelques repères quand la technologie défie la mort

2025· article· W7108207508 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProblem solverOrder (exchange)Subject (documents)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les avancées récentes en intelligence artificielle (IA) permettent un nouveau prolongement artificiel de la vie : les avatars numériques posthumes. Nombreux sont celles et ceux qui souhaitent utiliser l’IA pour préserver et interagir avec des représentations de personnes décédées. La « réapparition » des personnes se fait parfois de manière volontaire, mais parfois sans le consentement des familles ni des proches. Que penser de cette nouvelle façon de « prolonger l’existence » d’une personne décédée ? Quels sont les principaux enjeux éthiques que soulève cette pratique ? Connaître et comprendre les principaux risques et enjeux éthiques soulevés par l’« immortalité artificielle » est une étape cruciale afin de réfléchir au déploiement de ces avatars, en préservant la dignité humaine et en évitant les dérives.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207