Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le but de notre article est de montrer que les écrits politiques récents de Jürgen Habermas permettent de jeter un éclairage neuf sur la situation politique du Québec. Après avoir rappelé les principaux traits de sa conception du nationalisme à la lumière de sa théorie délibérative de la démocratie, nous relevons les forces et les faiblesses de sa position. Nous montrons que ses forces consistent à rendre plausible l'idée que la reconnaissance des identités collectives n'est pas incompatible avec le système des droits individuels et que le recours à des droits collectifs n'est ni utile, ni nécessaire. Ses faiblesses, quant à elles, consistent à sous-évaluer l'État-nation comme idéal politique légitime pour les nations minoritaires et, conséquemment, dans la supposition que leur intégration à des systèmes fédératifs ouverts est l'unique voie raisonnable de solution à leurs 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".