La distinction rousseauiste entre volonté de tous et volonté générale : une reconstruction mathématique et ses implications pour la théorie démocratique
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Se situant à mi-chemin entre l'exégèse rousseauiste et la théorie démocratique, cet article vise à éclairer l'analogie mathématique mobilisée par Rousseau pour illustrer la distinction entre volonté de tous et volonté générale et à réévaluer, à la lumière de cette analogie, les débats contemporains autour de la démocratie (libérale, épistémique, délibérative). Il s'agit de régler trois problèmes qui subsistent après la restitution par Philonenko de cet argument mathématique jugé irrécupérable et de montrer que la distinction rousseauiste ainsi reconstruite peut impulser significativement les tentatives actuelles de dépasser la volonté de tous libérale pour retrouver une volonté générale épistémique ou/et délibérative. Abstract. Halfway between Rousseauian exegesis and democratic theory, this article aims at clarifying the mathematical analogy that Rousseau used to illustrate the distinction between will of all and general will, and at reassessing in the light of this analogy the contemporary debates on democracy (liberal, epistemic, deliberative). Three problems that remain after Philonenko's restitution of this mathematical argument considered unrecoverable are solved herein. It is argued that the Rousseauian distinction thus reconstructed can give significant new impetus to current attempts to go beyond the liberal will of all in order to reach an epistemic or/and deliberative general will.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it