Des robots et des normes. Les attentes normatives envers le droit de la gouvernance pour réguler la recherche en robotique d’assistance au Québec*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avec l’avènement de nouvelles technologies, les normes souples – qui peuvent se rattacher au droit de la gouvernance – apparaissent comme une solution idéale pour remplacer celles appartenant au droit étatique, considéré par certains comme trop général, rigide et inadapté à l’encadrement du développement technologique. Or, à quel point un tel constat peut‑il s’appliquer à la régulation des activités de recherche effectuées au Québec pour développer des robots d’assistance sociale? Quelles attentes normatives peuvent autant être dégagées des règles du droit formel étatique que des normes rattachées au droit de la gouvernance? Cet article interrogera ainsi la connexité des rapports qu’entretiennent ces deux grands ensembles de normes, en brossant un portrait normatif de la régulation applicable à la recherche en robotique d’assistance au Québec.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".