Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux attitudes philosophiques s'affrontent aujourd'hui sur la question de la transformation future du droit. L'une de ces attitudes en appelle aux systèmes, et l'autre aux mondes vécus. Le présent article se propose de démontrer comment le modèle communicationnel du philosophe Jürgen Habermas peut apporter une résolution à la problématique de la transformation du droit à partir de la base du monde vécu. Nous analyserons donc d'abord le sens de la question de la transformation du droit en mettant en avant la logique sociale inhérente au droit tant du point de vue des systèmes que des mondes vécus. Ayant opté, à partir de la perspective habermassienne pour la problématique du monde vécu, nous étudierons par la suite les modalités spécifiques de la transformation du droit. Le modèle ainsi développé ouvre sur une nouvelle conception du droit lui-même, à partir de son appréhension à travers l’intersubjectivité du langage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".