Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un ensemble politique doit-il s’articuler à une conception partagée du bien commun ? Ou peut-il se stabiliser par un accord sur des principes de justice indépendants des différentes conceptions de la vie bonne qui traversent une société ? Voilà deux questions primordiales auxquelles tente de répondre cet article. Pour éclairer ces enjeux, l’auteur revient, dans un premier temps, sur une notion souvent galvaudée ou mal comprise : celle du pluralisme libéral. À partir de là, elle tente de montrer en quoi l’insistance communautarienne sur le bien commun s’intègre difficilement dans l’horizon de la modernité démocratique. En conséquence, elle plaide pour une dissociation radicale de la communauté morale et de la communauté légale. Pour l’auteur, cette dissociation paraît seule à même de respecter la diversité des sociétés contemporaines et de répondre aux nouvelles réalités de l’intégration politique européenne.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".