L’interprétation limitée du politique dans « The Law of Peoples » de John Rawls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse les limites de l’interprétation du politique que l’on trouve dans « The Law of Peoples » de John Rawls. Considéré comme une simple addition à sa conception libérale du droit et de la justice politique, telle que développée dans La théorie de la justice et par la suite amendée dans son Libéralisme politique, ce droit des gens l’étend au domaine des relations internationales tout en validant du même coup la portée universelle de son interprétation du politique. Reposant sur une stratégie qui tend à écarter l’expression des désaccords, des antagonismes et des oppositions, l’auteur soutient que cette interprétation rawlsienne du politique, qui vise à la réconciliation du monde commun autour d’un consensus partagé par l’ensemble des participants, ne contribue guère à l’intelligibilité du problème auquel J. Rawls lui-même estime que la réflexion politique est confrontée, mais conduit tout au contraire à un renforcement du statu quo.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".