Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le statut éthique et juridique de l’animal fait l’objet de discussions intenses aujourd’hui. Sa résolution suppose des choix difficiles entre des modèles argumentatifs en apparence incompatibles. L’auteur compare les deux principales formes de biocentrisme, le biocentrisme égalitaire et le biocentrisme hiérarchique, à l’anthropocentrisme, qui peut lui-même être radical ou modéré. Il en découle que le modèle anthropocentrique présente des avantages décisifs, à condition de subir une révision fondamentale, dans le sens d’une anthropo-relationnalité qui distingue la domination violente de l’homme sur l’animal du respect pleinement humain — et donc aussi humanisant — envers les animaux, dont il importe de prendre en compte la dignité et la valeur. La voie du pathocentrisme trouve alors une certaine justification, mais sans occulter la perspective humaine seule à même de fonder une éthique et de la rendre socialement plausible.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".