Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore les sources et conséquences d’une tension constitutive du discours humanitaire, soit celle entre la reconnaissance d’un égalitarisme socioculturel (qui ressort d’un cosmopolisme critique) et l’attachement à un universalisme moral individuel axé sur la personne souffrante (qui provient d’un libéralisme humaniste). Nous commençons par analyser les origines ethnocentriques du projet humanitaire, qui rendait l’appel à la charité et à la sympathie compatible avec une hiérarchisation des peuples à bases raciales ou ethnoculturelles. La seconde partie de l’article étudie un mécanisme-clé mais sous-estimé de l’humanitarisme, soit son régime de sentimentalisme visuel à travers lequel la personne souffrante est représentée comme victime méritant d’être sauvée à condition que son image évoque la pitié ou la sympathie dans la sphère publique. Enfin, nous expliquons comment le régime visuel de l’humanitaire accentue le paradoxe entre l’individualisme moral sentimental de l’humanitarisme libéral et le projet de justice mondiale prisé par le cosmopolitisme critique.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| 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".