Bibliographic record
Abstract
El escrito aborda la propuesta de Principia iuris en favor de una democracia cosmopolita, un ideal más fácil de formular que de realizar, al menos en tiempos breves. Antes de ello, se afronta el debate entre FERRAJOLI y ZOLO respecto de la concepción del constitucionalismo cosmopolita defendida por el primero y la afirmación de ZOLO de que tal defensa contiene un inevitable compromiso moral universalista. Se critica la respuesta relativista de FERRAJOLI a la crítica de ZOLO. Luego se argumenta además que, frente a la tesis de FERRAJOLI, su modelo cosmopolita es una versión más del gobierno mundial. Pero el principal problema de la propuesta de FERRAJOLI es su filosofía de la historia, a la vez optimista y apocalíptica, que descuida los enormes obstáculos para, por un lado, la consecución de un efectivo control de armamentos a escala mundial y, por otro lado, el logro de un acuerdo sobre instituciones globales en un mundo caracterizado por la diversidad de perspectivas culturales y morales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".