Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article, qui s’inscrit dans le champ de l’analyse argumentative, s’intéresse au débat parlementaire français de 1981 sur l’abolition de la peine de mort. Il s’attache à la description d’une séquence argumentative qui est récurrente dans les discours abolitionnistes de ce débat. Cette séquence est complexe, en ceci que les orateurs commencent par affirmer qu’ils « comprennent » le « désir de vengeance » qui anime la famille de la victime, mais finissent par décréter que la justice « ne peut pas être vengeresse ». L’analyse cherche à montrer en détail comment – au plan argumentatif – les orateurs parviennent à passer de la reconnaissance d’une pulsion mortifère à l’affirmation de l’« impossibilité d’une justice de mort ». On tente, en conclusion, de mesurer l’historicité de la séquence argumentative décrite en la comparant brièvement à des séquences apparentées que l’on rencontre dans les débats parlementaires antérieurs.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".