Bibliographic record
Abstract
Puisque la conception patriotique et la conception délibérative de la démocratie nous enjoignent de réaliser le bien commun, les deux peuvent se proclamer les héritières du républicanisme classique. Toutefois, ces perspectives modernes de la politique diffèrent. Pour le prouver et pour montrer la supériorité du patriotisme sur la démocratie délibérative, l’auteur avance quatre critiques de cette dernière : sa conception de la conversation fondée sur une théorie, sur un ensemble systématique de procédures ne correspond guère à la pratique de celle-ci ; elle est idéologiquement biaisée ; sa distinction entre la conversation et la négociation est exagérée ; sa conception de la communauté politique, plus particulièrement des relations entre l’État et la société civile, est pauvre. En conclusion, il soutient que le débat en philosophie politique entre les patriotes et les tenants de la démocratie délibérative constitue lui-même un exemple d’une conversation patriotique, plutôt que délibérative.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".