MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993414796 · doi:10.7202/1018719ar

Mini-publics et démocratie délibérative

2013· article· fr· W1993414796 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hervé Pourtois

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitique et Sociétés · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La légitimité du recours aux mini-publics est souvent justifiée par les défenseurs de la théorie délibérative de la démocratie par le fait que ceux-ci seraient un analogon de la délibération publique par le grand public. Cet article analyse cette justification et identifie quatre défis qui se posent à elle : l’autonomie interne des mini-publics, le risque de fragmentation des enjeux sociaux, l’ontologie sociale individualiste et surtout le défi de la démocratie de masse. Il conclut sur la nécessité de considérer plutôt les mini-publics comme des moyens visant à stimuler le débat au sein du grand public.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitique et SociétésSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207