La distinction public-privé à l’épreuve du débat bioéthique : le cas de la controverse au sujet des embryons in vitro
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.
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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".