Légalité et légitimité : réflexions sur les leçons de Weimar selon David Dyzenhaus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment comprendre la relation entre « légalité » et « légitimité » ? Devant ce problème capital, l'auteur propose une analyse et une réflexion en matière de philosophie du droit sur l'ouvrage majeur de David Dyzenhaus intitulé Legality and Legitimacy . Carl Schmitt, Hans Kelsen and Hermann Heller in Weimar . Il analyse la proposition de Dyzenhaus selon laquelle les leçons que nous devons tirer de l'échec de la République de Weimar et de ses théoriciens du droit, Schmitt, Kelsen et Heller, consistent à opter pour une version moderne du jusnaturalisme insistant sur la justification démocratique et éthique du droit. À l'opposé de cette opinion, que l'auteur critique, il propose plutôt de voir la légitimité comme issue d'une perspective envisageant le citoyen à titre d'auteur du droit, ce qui lui permet de comparer Habermas et Dyzenhaus.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".