A legitimação moral dos direitos humanos: uma análise dos princípios de justiça de John Rawls / The moral legitimation of human rights: an analysis on John Rawls’ principles of justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DOI 10.12957/dep.2011.2191 Resumo Este artigo analisará, em primeiro lugar, o significado kantiano de legitimação e a sua distinção em relação à legitimidade. Num segundo momento, tratará de aspectos centrais da teoria de John Rawls, o qual influenciado por Kant, Locke e Rousseau, construiu uma teoria universalista e procedimental baseada em princípios morais de justiça. Por fim, serão ainda apresentadas algumas críticas à teoria rawlsiana. Palavras-chave: legitimação; teoria da justiça; elementos estruturadores; princípios morais de justiça; críticas à teoria rawlsiana. Abstract This paper will examine, first, the Kantian notion of legitimation, and the distinction between legitimation and legitimacy. Secondly, it will address some key aspects of John Rawls’ theory, who influenced by Kant, Locke and Rousseau, built a universal and proceduralist theory grounded on the moral principles of justice. Finally, some critics on Rawlsian theory will be also presented. Keywords: legitimacy; a theory of justice; structuring elements; the moral principles of justice; critics on Rawlsian theory.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".