Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toutes les lois internationales contemporaines renvoient à l’obligation d’éviter une atteinte grave à l’intégrité physique ou mentale ; ces renvois soulèvent la question de savoir si l’obligation de ne pas causer un préjudice fournit la base d’un consensus moral apparent en relations internationales. Cet article présente des démarches philosophiques qui soutiennent que le devoir de ne pas causer un préjudice s’avère une obligation mondiale fondamentale. Nous y analysons les controverses relatives à la signification du concept de préjudice et nous discutons de la critique qui soutient que le principe « de ne pas causer un préjudice » n’est pas adéquat, car il place des obligations négatives de ne pas blesser devant les obligations positives de sauver. Dans l’article, nous proposons des façons selon lesquelles le principe « de ne pas causer un préjudice » offre néanmoins de nouvelles possibilités pour une éthique cosmopolite.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".