La distinction public-privé à l’épreuve du débat bioéthique : le cas de la controverse au sujet des embryons in vitro
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
Dans un contexte de stabilisation du débat bioéthique en France, l’explication consensuelle en science politique consiste à privilégier une lecture agonistique opposant terme à terme conservatisme moral et progressisme scientifique. Par une approche de théorie politique, cet article questionne cette hypothèse en posant la question de savoir dans quelle mesure le débat bioéthique tel qu’il est effectivement mené peut être analysé dans les termes du libéralisme politique privilégiant la distinction public-privé. En prenant appui sur l’observation et l’étude du débat au sujet des embryons in vitro surnuméraires, considéré comme particulièrement heuristique, l’article vise à l’ana-lyser au regard d’une conceptualisation alternative qui privilégie le désaccord, l’ambivalence des positions et l’accommodement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it