La recherche comme partage. Compte-rendu de La recherche en contexte de vulnérabilité - engagement du chercheur et enjeux éthiques, sous la direction de Nathalie Mondain et Arzouma Éric Bologo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resume Summary La recherche en contexte de vulnerabilite – engagement du chercheur et enjeux ethiques, sous la direction de Nathalie Mondain et Arzouma Eric Bologo, presente une serie d’articles lucides et riches d’enseignements sur les limites d’une application rigide sur le terrain de procedures methodologiques et d’ethiques de recherche formalisees a priori. Les auteurs suggerent que ces limites pourraient etre depassees par la participation de tous les acteurs dans la co-construction in situ du projet, lui assurant pertinence et validite. La recherche en contexte de vulnerabilite – engagement du chercheur et enjeux ethiques, edited by Nathalie Mondain and Arzouma Eric Bologo, presents a series of lucid articles and valuable lessons about the limits of a rigid application, in the field, of a priori methodological and research ethics procedures. The authors suggest that these limits may be countered by the participation of all stakeholders in the in situ co-construction of a project, ensuring its relevance and validity.
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 | 0.057 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.014 |
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".