La religion dans l’espace public : quelques commentaires sur les positions récentes de Habermas.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ : Cet article présente une évaluation d’ensemble des positions récentes de Habermas sur la place de la religion dans l’espace public. Après avoir comparé les positions respectives de Rawls et de Habermas sur cette question, en vue de mieux faire ressortir l’originalité de la contribution de Habermas, l’auteur se propose ensuite de montrer que cette dernière soulève un certain nombre de difficultés au plan théorique et pratique. Au plan théorique, il est démontré que la contribution de Habermas soulève un problème de cohérence par rapport à la conception plus générale qu’il se fait de la démocratie délibérative. Au plan pratique, le bien-fondé du rôle civique attendu des citoyens, tant religieux que laïcs, dans l’espace public ne paraît pas exempt de problèmes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".