MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2001304672 · doi:10.1017/s0008423906419971

La démocratie : histoire des idées.

2006· article· fr· W2001304672 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martin Breaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La démocratie : histoire des idées., Boris DeWiel, Québec : Les Presses de l'Université Laval, coll. Zêtêsis, 2005, 270p. “ Ensemble de procédures ”, “ régime ” au sens large du terme, forme de “ sociabilité humaine ”: la nature de la démocratie demeure l'objet d'une discussion théorique et pratique d'une importance primordiale, car il s'agit d'élucider les tenants et les aboutissants de cet “ horizon indépassable ” de la politique contemporaine qu'est la démocratie. La démocratie: histoire des idées s'inscrit précisément dans ce débat portant sur la nature et les finalités de la démocratie. Sous couvert d'une reconstitution intellectuelle de ses principaux enjeux, Boris DeWiel procède à un plaidoyer en faveur d'une conception de la démocratie en tant que régime qui accueille le conflit insoluble des valeurs. S'inscrivant explicitement dans la mouvance issue de la pensée d'Isaiah Berlin, l'auteur soutient qu'une compréhension véritable de la démocratie passe par une reconnaissance du “ pluralisme des valeurs ”, entendu comme “ la théorie embarrassante selon laquelle le bien n'est pas monolithique, nos intérêts communs entrent en conflit les uns avec les autres et, quand ils finissent par se heurter mutuellement, il n'y a plus de réponses universelles ” (2).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.525
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political Science→Same topicFrench Urban and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→