Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neste artigo, sugiro que podemos usufruir de um novo ponto de vista nos dilemas contemporâneos da teoria democrática ao considerarmos a democracia como um processo e uma reivindicação ao invés de uma forma de regime, seja ele real ou ideal. Para tanto, foco na idéia do 'povo', o fundamento ostensivo da democracia. Distingo quatro respostas diferentes à notória dificuldade, ou mesmo impossibilidade, de se localizar concretamente 'o povo'. As três primeiras são relativamente familiares, e correspondem a interpretações da democracia que vou chamar de liberal, associativa e participatória-radical. Todas têm desvantagens significativas, assim, passo à quarta interpretação. Nessa perspectiva, a qual elaborei principalmente com base na obra de Pierre Rosanvallon e Jacques Rancière, o valor prático da idéia do povo é negativo: o valor político do 'povo' não está em apontar para um povo positivo, real ou ideal, mas sim nas formas pelas quais qualquer visão oficial do 'povo' falha em corresponder à sua contraparte empírica, determinada e real em qualquer momento.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".