Critique de l'idée de propriété du corps humain ou Le miroir de l'infâme belle-mère de Blanche-Neige
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment rendre compte des fondements juridiques de la protection du corps humain ? Une doctrine ancienne héritière de Locke et certaines décisions de jurisprudence ont affirmé un droit de propriété du sujet sur son corps. Cette analyse repose sur l'affirmation au moins implicite d'une impossible distance entre le sujet et son corps, issue du platonisme, puis de la philosophie subjectiviste qui cherche à affirmer la maîtrise de la raison — d'une certaine raison — sur soi-même, sur autrui et sur le monde. Le danger est d'oublier que le corps est d'abord relation à autrui, ce qui d'ailleurs justifie sa protection contre des relations réifiantes. C'est dans cette relation même, et non dans un impossible lien de soi à soi, que doit être cherché le fondement ultime de la protection juridique du corps. Depuis la Renaissance, en philosophie, depuis la Charte des Nations Unies, en droit, le concept de respect de la dignité humaine pourrait constituer ce fondement.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".