Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selon la tradition, seulement trois régimes purs — monarchie, aristocratie et démocratie — sont identifiés comme étant capables, sous certaines conditions, de permettre l’atteinte du « bien commun ». Ce texte suggère qu’une typologie complète des régimes politiques doit inclure l’anarchie non pas en tant que forme dévoyée de la démocratie, mais bien comme un idéal type de régime pur. La nouvelle typologie devrait inclure la monarchie (le règne d’un seul), l’aristocratie (le règne d’une minorité), la démocratie (le règne de la majorité) et l’anarchie (l’auto-gouvernement de tous, par consensus). Au final, il est nécessaire de se rappeler que la vie politique ne se limite pas à l’État, et que l’anarchie peut s’incarner — ici et maintenant — dans des communautés et des groupes politiques locaux et de petite dimension. Le rejet radical de l’anarchie par les philosophes qui prétendent que sa réalisation est impossible dans notre monde moderne est donc trompeuse et appauvrit nécessairement notre pensée politique.
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 it