MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042293097 · doi:10.7202/013891ar

Peut-on se passer de la position originelle?

2006· article· fr· W2042293097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Soumaya Mestiri

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophiques · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theory and Influence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À quoi sert la position originelle? La réponse à cette question s’impose immédiatement à l’esprit du lecteur de Rawls: la PO sert à garantir l’ impartialité et l’équité des principes de justice en jetant un voile d’ignorance sur les intérêts particuliers des partenaires. Elle permet l’unanimité autour des principes de justice en créant les conditions nécessaires à la validation du processus kantien d’universalisation, puisque les principes sont considérés comme des impératifs catégoriques par ceux qui les choisissent. Nous défendons la thèse selon laquelle les raisons invoquées par Rawls pour justifier et légitimer la PO ne sont pas de bonnes raisons. Après avoir examiné ce qui met à mal la légitimité conceptuelle de cet «artifice d’exposition», nous proposerons un chemin différent qui conduit aux principes élus par Rawls lui-même sans passer par la PO, et en tirant les implications du conflit traditionnel entre intérêt personnel et morale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophiquesSame topicPolitical Theory and InfluenceFrench-language works237,207