Declarations

Two things shape work that a reader cannot see from the outside: who I am entangled with, and what wrote the words and the code. Both are declared here. Neither disclosure eliminates bias — it makes it visible and discussable, which is the point.

Conflicts of interest

I believe conflict-of-interest disclosure should be the norm across the research ecosystem—not only for those who collaborate with private companies. Financial ties matter, but so do intellectual commitments, methodological preferences, long-standing collaborations, and the social dynamics that shape who we read, cite, and platform. Transparent COI statements help readers interpret work in context and invite everyone—academics included—to reflect on how our incentives and networks influence our science.

This section documents my current roles, collaborations, and how I manage potential conflicts. If you have questions or see anything that could be clearer, please reach out.

Current roles and interests

Founder, NeuroNautix — consulting in behavioral experiments, behavioral scoring, data analysis, and (meta)data handling.
Creator, MAPP (METADATAPP) — an initiative to improve metadata management and make FAIR/Open practices operational in preclinical research.

Open source and release timelines

I am a strong advocate for open science. That said, building a new professional project entirely open source from day one can be difficult. Some components may be released progressively or after stabilization with early partners. My intent is to maximize openness while ensuring sustainability and quality.

Current collaborations (non-exhaustive)

In the context of NeuroNautix and MAPP, I currently collaborate with or am in ongoing conversations with: Tecniplast, Olden Labs, Metofico, Cology Biosciences, SoftMouse.NET, Anibio, and eLabFTW (DeltaBlot), among others. I will update this list as relationships evolve. Formal financial relationships (e.g., paid consulting, paid pilots) are disclosed in talks and manuscripts where relevant.

How I manage potential conflicts

Clear disclosure — I declare relevant roles, sponsors, and collaborations in talks, posts, and manuscripts.
Separation of evaluation from interest — When advising on tools or methods, I aim to separate needs assessment from vendor selection; where that isn't possible, I say so explicitly.
Methods transparency — I document assumptions, analysis choices, and constraints; I share schemas and interfaces so others can reproduce or critique them.
Diverse citation and credit — I make a deliberate effort to cite across schools, tools, and communities — not just close collaborators or familiar names.
Progressive openness — I publish specifications, mappings, and exports where possible; when code is not yet public, I share roadmaps and timelines.

Why this matters

Conflicts of interest are not only about money — they are also about ideas, incentives, and communities. Declaring them doesn't eliminate bias, but it makes it visible and discussable. My goal is to help readers place my work in context and to set an example I hope more of us follow.

AI usage

The same logic applies to the machine. AI wrote most of the code on this site, and I am not embarrassed by that — but you deserve to know which parts, so you can read them with the right eyes.

This follows AI-DECLARATION.md, an open standard for declaring AI involvement. The authoritative version is the machine-readable file at the root of the repository; everything below is rendered from it.

Overall level

䷼ auto

Spec v0.1.2 · raw file

Human prompts and AI acts autonomously bringing the task to completion.

By process

pair design Architecture, system design, and decision-making.
auto implementation Writing production code.
none testing Writing tests, test plans, and quality assurance.
copilot documentation Writing docs, comments, READMEs, and changelogs.
assist review Code review and pull request feedback.
auto deployment CI/CD configuration, infrastructure, and release scripts.

By component

auto src/components
auto src/layouts
auto src/pages
auto src/styles
auto scripts
auto .github
copilot public
assist src/content

Notes

This site is engineered with coding agents. The migration to Astro, the components, layouts, styles, scaffolding scripts, and the GitHub Pages workflow were written by AI under my direction and reviewed by me before merging.
Architecture and information design were decided together: I set the requirements and the structure, the agent proposed and implemented them.
Everything under src/content is my own record — papers, talks, roles, education, awards, press. AI is used to scaffold and format those entries, never to invent them. Bibliographic facts come from the publications themselves.
Blog posts are mine in argument and conclusion. Several were drafted or edited with AI assistance; none contain claims or citations I have not checked myself.
testing is not listed, and therefore none: this site has no automated test suite. Verification is npm run build plus manual review.
Declaring auto is deliberate. The point is not that no human was involved — I direct, review, and own every line here — but that you should know which parts a machine wrote, so you can read them with the right eyes.

What the levels mean

Defined by the specification as a combination of the verbs act and prompt.

none Human acts on the task alone with no AI involvement.
hint Human acts on the task and the AI surfaces suggestions passively.
assist Human prompts and the AI acts on a part of the task.
pair Human prompts as both human and AI both act on the task equally; Human understands internals clearly.
copilot Human prompts and AI acts on the whole task, prompting the Human for permission or clarification.
auto Human prompts and AI acts autonomously bringing the task to completion.

Something look wrong, out of date, or under-declared? Tell me — these statements are meant to be held to.

— Damien Huzard