Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le droit français actuel ne reconnaît aucun statut juridique à l’animal mais distingue différents régimes en fonction du type de relation qui lie les animaux aux hommes. Certains mouvements de « défense des animaux », sous l’influence de doctrines philosophiques anglo-saxonnes, tentent de faire reconnaître des « droits de l’animal » ou d’introduire dans notre code civil une nouvelle personnalité juridique, celle de l’animal « être sensible ». Nous nous efforçons de montrer l’incohérence conceptuelle et les risques, pour une éthique humaniste, de ces innovations. Au lieu d’un statut moral unique conféré à l’« animal », qui n’est qu’une fiction idéologique, il convient de distinguer les devoirs que nous avons vis-à-vis des animaux de compagnie, ceux que nous avons vis-à-vis des animaux domestiques et ceux que nous avons vis-à-vis des animaux sauvages. Nous dégageons les fondements philosophiques de ces obligations morales différenciées.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".