Bibliographic record
Abstract
Puisque le projet de Habermas est de concilier un point de vue conceptuel et un point de vue politico-normatif, il est légitime de vérifier si ces deux points de vue coïncident. Dans cette perspective, on peut montrer que, quand Habermas analyse la crise de l’État-nation, le modèle conceptuel binaire — système/monde vécu — glisse vers un modèle ternaire — sphère économique autonome et dépolitisée, État-social-démocratique et espace contestataire. Ce déplacement et les difficultés qu’il entraîne proviennent notamment de l’idée que chaque sphère de la société est censée être intégrée par un medium unique (monnaie ou pouvoir ou discussion). Une telle position s’avère formellement intenable. En s’appuyant sur Habermas lui-même, il est possible de dépasser le principe d’intégration pour adopter celui de dissension coordonnée des rapports sociaux.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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".