Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le clonage humain soulève des questions inédites. Nombreux sont les documents normatifs et les déclarations qui l’interdisent en vertu de la dignité humaine. La question qui vient à l’esprit est la suivante : la dignité de qui ? Dans la mesure où le clonage implique l’utilisation des embryons, nous pouvons nous demander si ces organismes sont visés par la dignité humaine au sens juridique et éthique. La réponse négative à cette demande nous permet, dans le sillage de Habermas, de distinguer, d’une part, la dignité humaine et, d’autre part, la dignité de la vie humaine. Le premier aspect renvoie aux personnes ayant une personnalité juridique et morale. Il exclut les embryons et exige une protection inconditionnelle. Le second s’étend à l’espèce humaine en général et inclut les embryons. Il implique une protection conditionnelle. Importante, cette distinction permet d’éviter la banalisation de la dignité humaine et dépolarise le débat sur l’utilisation des embryons.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".